Supreme Court of India | Photo: Manisha Mondal | ThePrint
The Supreme Court of India | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint
Text Size:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday said it will commence the final hearing of a decade-old contempt case against advocate Prashant Bhushan from 4 August.

“We need to hear the matter. This case needs to be heard by someone. We need to start the hearing at least,” said a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra-led and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari.

The same bench had issued a fresh contempt notice against Bhushan Wednesday for his tweets on Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde as well as other CJIs. The bench took a view that Bhushan’s tweets had brought disrepute to the judicial institution. Notices were also issued to Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Twitter Inc.

The case heard Friday dates back to 2009 when Bhushan gave an interview to Tehelka magazine where he had allegedly made serious imputation against the then CJI S.H. Kapadia by stating that the top judge had heard a matter involving Sterlite company despite holding shares in it. The complaint was made by senior advocate Harish Salve, who was the amicus curiae in the Sterlite case.

In the same interview, Bhushan had claimed that half of India’s last 16 CJIs were corrupt.
Bhushan’s father and former Union law minister, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, had earlier sought to implead himself as a party in the case. He had filed a detailed affidavit in a sealed envelope, asserting the allegations made by his son were correct. The matter was last heard in 2012.


Also read: Why contempt case against Prashant Bhushan in Supreme Court could set a bad precedent


Hold open court hearing, say Bhushans

In his address to the court Friday, Shanti Bhushan urged the judges to hold an open court hearing of the matter. Due to his age, it is very hard to address the court via video-conferencing, he told the bench.

“I request to adjourn the matter to when normal court proceeding is resumed. It’s an old case. It has waited for these years, it can wait a few more weeks for normal functioning to resume,” he submitted.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, on behalf of Prashant Bhushan, voiced a similar view. He said his own case papers have been locked away. “Old records will have to be gone into. Questions of law will have to be considered whether a special bench should take up matter. We need time to go through records,” Dhawan said.

Shanti Bhushan then insisted on arguing his impleadment application. However, the bench was reluctant to hear it.

“Mr Bhushan, you are too senior to be impleaded in the matter. We don’t want to inconvenience you,” it said.

“Your application says in case your son is held guilty you would be willing to go to jail. That is not a legal argument that we would hear. Argument made out of love and affection is not a legal argument,” the bench added.

Salve, too, pointed out that some of the papers of the case are in office in New Delhi and he needs to get them. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Tehelka and said he also required some time to study the papers.


Also read: ‘Voices of dissent can’t be suppressed’ — SC breather for Pilot camp until next hearing


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

4 Comments Share Your Views

4 COMMENTS

  1. P. Bhushan accuses the Supreme Court itself during 1914-1919. Is it believable that most of the people of the Supreme Court have worked for destroying democracy in India particularly during this period? Prima facie it seems to me that the tweet is motivated. In the name of protecting democracy it is subverting democracy. Therefore, P. Bhushan should not be defended wearing any cloak.

  2. A ten year old case to just browbeat Prashant Bhushan.

    The list of petty and vindictive judges grows. It is time for serious introspection as to how these kind of judges go to the Supreme Court.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here