Contempt case in opposition to Prashant Bhushan ought to be heard by structure bench: Former SC choose Joseph KurianContempt case in opposition to Prashant Bhushan ought to be heard by structure bench: Former SC choose


New Delhi, August 1

Former Supreme Court choose Justice Kurian Joseph Wednesday got here out in help of lawyer Prashant Bhushan and stated contempt circumstances in opposition to him raised substantial questions of legislation that ought to be heard by a structure bench. Justice Joseph additionally stated that an individual convicted by the highest court docket in a suo-motu case ought to get a chance for an intra-court attraction.

“Under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India, there shall be a quorum of minimum five Judges for deciding any case involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. In both the suo motu contempt cases, in view of the substantial questions of law on the interpretation of the Constitution of India and having serious repercussions on the fundamental rights, the matters require to be heard by a Constitution Bench,” Joseph stated in a press release.

The former choose stated a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has determined to listen to just a few critical questions on the scope and extent of the contempt of Court.         

“Certainly, there are graver issues, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India.  For example, whether a person convicted by the Supreme Court of India in a suo motu case should get an opportunity for an intra-court appeal since in all other situations of conviction in criminal matters, the convicted person is entitled to have a second opportunity by way of an appeal,” he stated.

Joseph stated beneath Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an intra-court attraction is offered the place the order is handed by the only Judge of the High Court and in case it’s by the Division Bench, attraction lies to the Supreme Court.

“This safeguard is provided probably to avoid even the remotest possibility of miscarriage of justice. Should there not be such a safeguard in the other Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of India also, when there is a conviction in a suo-motu criminal contempt case?”

“Fiat justitia ruat caelum (let justice be done though the heavens fall) is the fundamental basis of administration of justice by courts. But, if justice is not done or if there is miscarriage of justice, heavens will certainly fall. The Supreme Court of India should not let it happen,” he stated.

Referring to the contempt proceedings in opposition to Justice CS Karnan (then sitting excessive court docket choose), Justice Joseph stated it was the collective knowledge of the complete court docket of the Supreme Court that the matter ought to be heard no less than by a Bench consisting of the seven of the court docket’s most senior judges.   

 “The present contempt cases are not cases involving just one or two individuals; but larger issues pertaining to the concept and jurisprudence of the Country regarding justice itself,” Justice Joseph, who retired on November 29, 2019, stated.

The former choose stated necessary circumstances like these must be heard elaborately in a bodily listening to the place solely there’s scope for a broader dialogue and wider participation.

“Men may come and men may go, but the Supreme Court of India should remain forever as the court of supreme justice,” he stated.

The apex court docket is seized of two contempt circumstances in opposition to Bhushan.

The apex court docket in November 2009, had issued a contempt discover to Bhushan and journalist Tarun Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former prime court docket judges in an interview to a information journal. Tejpal was the editor of the journal.

In the second case, the apex court docket on August 14 had held Bhushan responsible of prison contempt for his two derogatory tweets in opposition to the judiciary saying they can’t be stated to be a good criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made within the public curiosity.

Later, the apex court docket stated it could contemplate sure bigger questions within the 2009 contempt case in opposition to Bhushan and Tejpal as the problem earlier than it has large ramifications. PTI

 



Be the first to comment on "Contempt case in opposition to Prashant Bhushan ought to be heard by structure bench: Former SC choose Joseph KurianContempt case in opposition to Prashant Bhushan ought to be heard by structure bench: Former SC choose"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


%d bloggers like this: