Media carries discussions seeking to influence the thinking of judges: AG KK Venugopal in 2009 Prashant Bhushan contempt case

During the hearing of the 2009 contempt case filed against Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Attorney General KK Venugopal today raised concerns on how discussions in the media on sub-judice cases are damaging to the institution..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari..Since the Bench is now pondering over larger questions that emanate from the case, AG Venugopal stated that the question of comments regarding sub-judice matters also need to be considered. ."The issue of sub-judice needs to be considered. Today, electronic and print media carry on discussions seeking to influence the thinking of judges. This is doing great damage to the institution."AG KK Venugopal.Adding that the issue of comments on sub-judice matters has taken serious proportions today, the AG went on to say,"When I see TV and a bail application is coming up, the TV is flashing conversations between the accused and someone. This may be damaging to the accused and it comes up during the bail hearing. This is contempt of court.".At this juncture, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan stated that one part of the sub-judice comments question was considered in the Sahara case. "Another aspect stretches to a European court judgment where it was discussed that a court had asked: can the press be asked not to report on Shylock's case?", said Dhavan. .The Court will now hear the case on November 4. By then, all counsel involved are expected to discuss among themselves and fine tune the questions that need to be referred to a Constitution Bench.The Registry has also been asked to get in touch with amicus curiae and Senior Advocate Harish Salve to ask him to appear on November 4. .The Court had earlier directed that the case records in the 2009 contempt case be sent to AG Venugopal..Supreme Court impleads Attorney General KK Venugopal in 2009 contempt case against Prashant Bhushan.The matter was initially placed before a Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra. Keeping in view the larger questions that emerged from the case and the lengthy hearing the same would require, Justice Mishra's Bench had directed for the case to be placed before another appropriate bench. An order to this effect was passed on August 25, when Justice Mishra was just days away from demitting office as a Supreme Court judge..[Breaking] 2009 contempt case against Prashant Bhushan: Supreme Court to place larger questions before appropriate Bench.The Court had asked the counsel involved in the case to address the following questions:In case a public statement as to corruption by a particular Judge(s) is permissible, under what circumstances and on what basis, it can be made, and safeguards, if any, to be observed in that regard ?What procedure is to be adopted to make complaint in such cases when the allegation is about the conduct of a sitting Judge ?Whether against retired Judge(s), any allegation as to corruption can be made publicly, thereby shaking the confidence of general public in the judiciary; and whether the same would be punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?.The instant contempt case dates back to 2009, when Bhushan made statements alleging corruption in the judiciary in an interview with Tehelka magazine.The Supreme Court had subsequently taken suo motu notice of the issue after a complaint to this effect was filed by Salve. The contempt petition was held to be maintainable by a three-judge Bench on November 10, 2010.