Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 4
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its orders on acceptability of a press release submitted by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan who’s going through prison contempt proceedings for his 2009 assertion allegedly scandalising the judiciary.
“Explanation/apology submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan/ Respondent No.1 and Mr. Tarun Tejpal/Respondent No.2, haven’t been acquired to date. In case we don’t settle for the reason/apology, we’ll hear the matter,” a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra stated whereas reserving its order.
Most a part of the listening to that passed off in two classes remained ‘muted’ because the Bench selected to talk to senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing Bhushan, on telephone.
The growth occurred on a day when 16 eminent members of the civil society, together with activist Aruna Roy, moved the Supreme Court searching for to intervene within the matter, contending contempt proceedings in opposition to Bhushan amounted to stifling free speech.
At the very outset Justice Mishra requested Dhavan to demarcate the skinny line between free speech and contempt of court docket. “How do we save the grace of the system and bring this to an end as well?” the Bench requested Dhavan.
“Mr Bhushan has given an explanation. That explanation can put an end to this,” Dhavan replied.
Thereafter Justice Mishra spoke to Dhavan and senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the then Tehelka Editor Tarun Tejpal, on telephone and the listening to appeared to have ended for the day. However, the listening to resumed in late afternoon.
The Bench, which resumed listening to within the matter final month after 9 years, stated it wished the events to challenge statements tendering their apologies to finish the matter.
Bhushan, who refused to tender an apology, issued a press release expressing remorse.
“In my interview to Tehelka in 2009 I’ve used the phrase corruption in a large sense that means lack of propriety. I didn’t imply solely monetary corruption or deriving any pecuniary benefit. If what I’ve stated brought on damage to any of them or to their households in any method, I remorse the identical,” Bhushan’s wrote in his assertion.
“I unreservedly state that I support the institution of the judiciary and especially the Supreme Court of which I am a part, and had no intention to lower the prestige of the judiciary in which I have complete faith,” learn the assertion.
“I remorse if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that’s, decrease the status of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, which may by no means have been my intention in any respect,” the assertion added.
In the post-lunch session, the Bench indicated it’d move an order that allegations of corruption within the judiciary would quantity to contempt per se. But Dhavan argued that such can’t be performed with out listening to the events.