SC allows contempt plea by Salve; Prashant Bhushan faces contempt; calls for impeachment of Justice Dinakaran

Bar&Bench News Network

Oct 12, 2009

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed a plea by Senior Counsel Harish Salve (pictured, right) to initiate contempt proceedings against noted civil liberties lawyer, Prashant Bhushan (pictured, left). In an interview with the weekly Tehelka, he had made certain statements regarding Supreme Court Justice Kapadia's interest in a matter relating to Sterlite Industries, allegedly implying judicial impropriety in Justice Kapadia's behavior. Salve, who acted as amicus curiae on the matter, felt that such careless comments by a member of the Bar was "regrettable", and requested permission to file a petition for contempt against Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan has been one of the strongest voices in the movement for judicial accountability, and is spearheading the campaign for public declaration of Judges' assets. In the interview, he had stated that Justice Kapadia heard a matter involving Vedanta Sterlite, despite owning shares in the company. However, the matter was subsequently clarified in a letter to the magazine by Senior Counsel U.U. Lalit, one of the counsels in the case, who made it plain that Justice Kapadia had made a full disclosure before starting proceedings on the matter, and asked if any of the parties had an objection to his adjudicating on the matter. When none of the parties raised an objection, Justice Kapadia continued to preside over the proceedings.

Salve has stated that he will refrain from filing the petition if Prashant Bhushan offers a sincere apology for misrepresenting the facts to the media.

Prashant Bhushan, undaunted, continued his campaign for judicial accountability by calling for the impeachment of Justice Dinakaran. Speaking at a seminar on 'Appointment and retirement of Judges' organised by the Karnataka Forum for Judicial Accountability, (KFJA), he stated that the committee appointed by the CJI to probe into the allegations against Justice Dinakaran was against the Judges Inquiry Act and would not be able to achieve its end. He claimed that there was documentary evidence of Dinakaran's disproportionate wealth and land holdings, and evidence of misuse of judicial office, and added, "The only option left is impeaching him by getting sufficient signatures from the members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha." 

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter
Comments(4)
  • 1. "Sucking up to the judges. Salve really needs that?". Janardhan, Delhi
  • 2. "While it is imperative to know what Bhushan has actually said, Salve's action is weakening the reform cause. Salve doesnt need to initiate contempt in order to teach discipline to Bhushan. Whatever may be Salve's motives, propriety and common sense demands that Kapadia ought to have recused himself, the moment he realised that he had a conflict of interests. To claim that he had consensual jurisdiction is a mockery of justice, a bad precedent and an audacious claim which deserves severe condemnation. Hail Prashant Bhushan.". Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Chennai
  • 3. "I feel that Mr.Salve ought not have acted as amicus curiae when another senior cousnel is fighting for reforms in the judiciary. There is immeninet necessity for judicial accountability other wise there cannot be justice to the citizens. I request Mr.Salve not to take up any petition against Mr.Prashant Bushan.". MOVIDI LAXMAN RAO, HYDERABAD
  • 4. "Mr. SalvePlease disclose whether you have share in Vedanta or Sterlite. If you have, then please refrain yourself from the filing and/or continuing the contempt proceeding against Prashant Bhusan.". Dhiman, Calcutta
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.