SC to consider larger questions in 2009 contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, Tarun Tejpal


New Delhi: The Supreme Court docket Monday stated it might think about sure bigger questions within the 2009 contempt case towards activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan and journalist Tarun Tejpal as the difficulty earlier than it has huge ramifications. The highest courtroom stated it wish to hear arguments from the legal professionals as to what must be the method which must be adopted in contempt circumstances the place allegations are being levelled towards judges.

A 3-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra stated it wish to hear the counsels on whether or not such statements could be made and the process to be adopted for coping with them. The apex courtroom in November 2009, had issued a contempt discover to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former high courtroom judges in an interview to a information journal. Tejpal was the editor of the journal. Bhushan instructed the courtroom on Sunday that making corruption expenses towards the judges wouldn’t quantity to contempt of courtroom and mere utterance of corruption cost couldn’t be contempt of courtroom.

The highest courtroom requested senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan — showing for Bhushan — Shanti Bhushan and Kapil Sibal to deal with it on three points — whether or not such statements could be made, in what circumstances they are often made and what’s the process to be adopted with respect to sitting and retired judges. The bench, additionally comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, posted the matter for subsequent listening to on August 24. On the outset, Dhavan stated the courtroom ought to think about sure questions and the matter must be heard by a bigger bench.

Dhavan additionally referred to the current judgement during which Bhushan was held responsible of contempt for his two derogatory tweets towards the judiciary and stated the lawyer intends to file a evaluation petition towards the August 14 verdict. He instructed the courtroom that it seems that August 14 judgment suffers from many imbalances as in some elements the decision says that allegations towards judges “per se” doesn’t represent contempt.

Sibal, showing for Tarun Tejpal, then stated the matter must be given quietus (discharged). The bench stated that even the courtroom needs to offer the case a quietus however it there are specific questions which want consideration. Dhavan stated the questions posed by the courtroom had been very “significant” and steered that the matter be examined by a structure bench. Shanti Bhusan sought adjournment of the matter by two weeks when the bodily listening to is more likely to be resumed.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here