The Supreme Court today expressed its intention to address larger questions arising from the 11-year-old contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan..The matter was heard by a three Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari..Appearing for Bhushan, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan said that today's hearing is about the examination of the specific point of whether the allegation made by Bhushan constitutes contempt..Dhavan also revealed that Bhushan intends to file a review petition against the Court's August 14 judgment finding him guilty of contempt in a separate case..At this point, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asked,"Why should this matter not be given quietus to? Why argue the case at all?".Justice Mishra then observed that the Court wants to end the case. He went on to pose a few questions, including,"In case you have any grievance against any judge, what should be the process? In what circumstances can such allegations be made?"When some matter is subjudice, to what extent...can matter be argued through media or another mode?".The Court went on to state,"We want to hear (the matter), because if the question is left, then it will not be better for later on.".Stating that the questions posed by the Court were "meaningful", Dhavan suggested that closure be given to the case against Bhushan, while referring the questions raised to a larger Bench..The Court then said that it would like to hear the counsel on two aspects:If statements on judicial corruption are made in public, what are the circumstances under which they can be madeProcedure to be adopted if such statements of corruption are made in public against sitting as well as retired judges.Dhavan told the Court that some questions have been framed by himself and Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan..The Court proceeded to adjourn the matter for next week..The instant contempt case dates back to 2009, when Bhushan made statements alleging corruption in the judiciary in an interview with Tehelka magazine..The case was filed against Bhushan after he made allegations against former Chief Justices of India SH Kapadia and KG Balakrishnan..During the interview, Bhushan also allegedly said that half of the preceding 16 Chief Justices of India were corrupt. As per the complaint, Bhushan also said that he had no proof of the allegations..The Supreme Court had subsequently taken suo motu notice of the issue after a complaint to this effect was filed by Senior Advocate Harish Salve, Amicus in the case..The contempt petition was held to be maintainable by a three-judge Bench on November 10, 2010, following which the case was heard on 17 occasions..After the Court decided to hear the case on merits earlier this month, Bhushan filed his written submissions. He has argued that allegations of corruption made in public interest lie within the purview of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and such allegations per se do not constitute contempt of court. These allegations ought to be further investigated, he has claimed.."...allegation of corruption per se cannot be contempt because the same pertains to criticism of a judge for a biased dispensation of justice and would in all cases require further investigation before such allegations are brushed aside at the threshold.".To buttress his argument on further investigation, Bhushan cites the example of allegations of corruption made against former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Justice PD Dinakaran and former judge at the Calcutta High Court, Justice Soumitra Sen..Bhushan has also taken the defence of truth. His reply filed before the Court argues,."When such truth/defense is invoked, the Court, to Court to hold the alleged contemnor guilty of contempt, the Court will have to necessarily return a finding that (a) such defence is not in public interest; and (b) the request for invoking such defence is not bona-fide.".Summarising his defence, the reply argues that firstly, corruption in public life has a vast and expansive meaning which goes beyond just pecuniary or financial corruption. Secondly, the fact of corruption is not unheard of and been taken note of by Parliamentary Committees as well as observed by judges in their judgments. Thirdly, an allegation per se cannot be contempt, and finally, truth is a defence to such proceedings..The reply was filed through Advocate Kamini Jaiswal..On August 14, the Court found Bhushan guilty of contempt in a separate case that was initiated by the Court with respect to two of Bhushan's contentious tweets..Read Written Submissions:
The Supreme Court today expressed its intention to address larger questions arising from the 11-year-old contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan..The matter was heard by a three Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari..Appearing for Bhushan, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan said that today's hearing is about the examination of the specific point of whether the allegation made by Bhushan constitutes contempt..Dhavan also revealed that Bhushan intends to file a review petition against the Court's August 14 judgment finding him guilty of contempt in a separate case..At this point, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal asked,"Why should this matter not be given quietus to? Why argue the case at all?".Justice Mishra then observed that the Court wants to end the case. He went on to pose a few questions, including,"In case you have any grievance against any judge, what should be the process? In what circumstances can such allegations be made?"When some matter is subjudice, to what extent...can matter be argued through media or another mode?".The Court went on to state,"We want to hear (the matter), because if the question is left, then it will not be better for later on.".Stating that the questions posed by the Court were "meaningful", Dhavan suggested that closure be given to the case against Bhushan, while referring the questions raised to a larger Bench..The Court then said that it would like to hear the counsel on two aspects:If statements on judicial corruption are made in public, what are the circumstances under which they can be madeProcedure to be adopted if such statements of corruption are made in public against sitting as well as retired judges.Dhavan told the Court that some questions have been framed by himself and Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan..The Court proceeded to adjourn the matter for next week..The instant contempt case dates back to 2009, when Bhushan made statements alleging corruption in the judiciary in an interview with Tehelka magazine..The case was filed against Bhushan after he made allegations against former Chief Justices of India SH Kapadia and KG Balakrishnan..During the interview, Bhushan also allegedly said that half of the preceding 16 Chief Justices of India were corrupt. As per the complaint, Bhushan also said that he had no proof of the allegations..The Supreme Court had subsequently taken suo motu notice of the issue after a complaint to this effect was filed by Senior Advocate Harish Salve, Amicus in the case..The contempt petition was held to be maintainable by a three-judge Bench on November 10, 2010, following which the case was heard on 17 occasions..After the Court decided to hear the case on merits earlier this month, Bhushan filed his written submissions. He has argued that allegations of corruption made in public interest lie within the purview of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and such allegations per se do not constitute contempt of court. These allegations ought to be further investigated, he has claimed.."...allegation of corruption per se cannot be contempt because the same pertains to criticism of a judge for a biased dispensation of justice and would in all cases require further investigation before such allegations are brushed aside at the threshold.".To buttress his argument on further investigation, Bhushan cites the example of allegations of corruption made against former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Justice PD Dinakaran and former judge at the Calcutta High Court, Justice Soumitra Sen..Bhushan has also taken the defence of truth. His reply filed before the Court argues,."When such truth/defense is invoked, the Court, to Court to hold the alleged contemnor guilty of contempt, the Court will have to necessarily return a finding that (a) such defence is not in public interest; and (b) the request for invoking such defence is not bona-fide.".Summarising his defence, the reply argues that firstly, corruption in public life has a vast and expansive meaning which goes beyond just pecuniary or financial corruption. Secondly, the fact of corruption is not unheard of and been taken note of by Parliamentary Committees as well as observed by judges in their judgments. Thirdly, an allegation per se cannot be contempt, and finally, truth is a defence to such proceedings..The reply was filed through Advocate Kamini Jaiswal..On August 14, the Court found Bhushan guilty of contempt in a separate case that was initiated by the Court with respect to two of Bhushan's contentious tweets..Read Written Submissions:
