Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rajendran Nallusamy (Advocate)     14 January 2011

SC to proceed against Prashant Bhushan in contempt case

 

With advocate Prashant Bhushan — facing contempt of court charges for his interview alleging corruption in judiciary — making it clear that he would not tender an apology, the Supreme Court on Thursday decided to proceed with the case on merits.

On December 7, 2010, a Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H.L. Dattu, hearing a contempt petition against Mr. Bhushan and Managing Editor of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal for publishing the interview, had asked the two contemnors to consider offering an apology.

“JUDGE OF INTEGRITY”

During the resumed hearing on Thursday, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Mr. Bhushan, submitted a written statement on behalf of Mr. Bhushan which said: “My remarks regarding the present Chief Justice of India, S.H. Kapadia, in my interview published by Tehelka magazine, appears to have given rise to some misunderstanding about the purport of those remarks. It is wrong and most unfortunate that my remarks appear to have been misconstrued by some as imputations of financial corruption. Justice Kapadia is widely perceived to be a Judge of absolute financial integrity and I fully share that perception.”

“On March 25, 2010, my senior counsel Mr. Jethmalani made a statement in my presence and with my concurrence on this issue which has been recorded by the court to the effect that: let it also be recorded that it has been submitted by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, senior counsel appearing for Mr. Prashant Bhushan that his client has the highest regard for Justice S.H. Kapadia and no disrespect was meant to his Lordship in regard to certain statements attributed to him which have been published in the Press.

“I have thus made it clear at every stage of the proceedings that I have the highest respect for the integrity and character of Justice Kapadia, the present CJI. Under the circumstances, I do not think that I owe any further explanation and this explanation should suffice to put an end to any misunderstanding about the purport of my remarks.”

When Justice Kabir, after perusing the statement, asked counsel “why can't Mr. Prashant tender an apology or regret,” Mr. Jethmalani said: “You [court] cannot extract an apology from my client. Contempt proceedings should not proceed under somebody's threat. Only cowards who are not willing to face the proceedings will tender such an apology. I will not advice my client to tender [an] apology.”

When the Bench passed a brief order that it was not accepting the statement and would go ahead with the case on merits, Mr. Jethmalani said, “If the proceedings are allowed to go on, it would open a can of worms.” Justice Kabir replied: “If they are to be opened, open it.”

Mr. Jethmalani said: “Everyone knows what is happening in this court for the last two years but no one dared to speak. If people should suffer for talking truth then millions of people are ready to go behind bars.” Justice Kabir replied, “Let it be.”

Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Mr. Tejpal, said his client was adopting the stand of Mr. Bhushan and said: “If truth is going to be the defence then some of the former CJIs will come under X-ray.”

Justice Cyriac Joseph observed: “Sometimes even Judges express regret to the counsel if they feel that a particular thing was understood in a particular manner and which was not the intention of the counsel. Similarly, there may be nothing wrong in offering regret by the contemnors if the perception of others is that what they said is contempt.”

When the former Union Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan, who had alleged that there was corruption in the judiciary and wanted his application to be heard, the Bench said it would consider it on the next date of hearing. The Bench, which had already held that the contempt petition was maintainable, would hear the case on merits from April 13.



Learning

 5 Replies


(Guest)

KINDLY NOTE THAT ORDER IS ALREADY PASSED BY THE COURT .LET COURT PROCEED AND DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERIT. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF THE CONCERNED IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO KEEP COOL AND TRY TO SORT OUT UNNECESSARY LITIGATIONS WHICH WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE CONCERNED.GOOD LUCK.
 

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     14 January 2011

JUDGES ARE NOT SEASSOR'S WIFE.

MANY OF US HAVE BITTER EXPERIENCE.

FROMER CJI MR BALAKRISHNAN IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLE. HE INSISTED JUDGES NOT TO DECLEARE THERE PROPERTIES. PEOPLE AGRIVED ON IT. EVEN FORMER SPEAKER MR SOMENATH PASSED ADVERSE COMMENTS AND HIS DISPLEASER.

NOW MR BALAKRISHNAN IS IN ADVERSE POSITION.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHO IS HONEST AND WHO NOT.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     14 January 2011

Because he is leading the "Campaign for Judicial Accountability", probably court wants to muzzle him. He has clarified his stand in his affidavit, copy available at https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Affidavit-of-Prashant-Bhushan-Advocate-in-contemp-Case-2482.asp Anybody in this country who demands accountability and the rights of people can be declared to be violating law, unlawful, enemy of State, anti-national, booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, killed in stage managed encounter, killed in stage managed accident, killed by robbers/unidentified persons and what not. In England they say "God save the Queen". In India I say "God save the Constitution."

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     16 January 2011

Democratic Indian, thank you very much for your right thinkng in painting the true position of India Today: India that beongs to you and me. Our beloved Country the Great Bharat.

lissing perme (unemployed)     17 January 2011

Interesting !! and  hope right to freedom of spech and expression prevailed.!!


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register