Tribune News Service
New Delhi, September 10
The Supreme Court on Thursday made Attorney General KK Venugopal a celebration to an 11-year-old legal contempt case initiated in opposition to activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in 2009 for his assertion in Tehelka Magazine that half the 16 former CJIs have been “corrupt”.
The Attorney General has been made a celebration to the contempt case in opposition to Bhushan in accordance with Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules.
A 3-judge Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar stated it should determine at a later stage if Venugopal needs to be made amicus curiae within the case and posted the matter for additional listening to on October 12.
Earlier, a Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra (since retired) had referred the case to CJI SA Bobde for putting earlier than an acceptable Bench the query of battle between proper to free speech and suo motu contempt powers of the court docket.
The Supreme Court had on August 10 determined to go forward with legal contempt proceedings in opposition to Bhushan because it refused to simply accept his ‘regret’ in connection together with his 2009 assertion allegedly scandalising the judiciary.
“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se quantity to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had stated in a short order.
But Bhushan had refused to tender an apology and issued an announcement expressing remorse. He has contended that allegations of corruption per se can’t be per se contempt of court docket.
In a written submission filed within the prime court docket, Bhushan—who was held responsible of Contempt of Court and filed Re 1 in one other case referring to his controversial tweets in opposition to CJI SA Bobde— has made it clear that he would invoke reality as his defence.
Bhushan contended that corruption in public life has a large and expansive definition. “Corruption is not restricted to pecuniary gratification alone but various instruments identify its particular forms such as bribery, embezzlement, theft, fraud, extortion, abuse of discretion, favouritism, nepotism, clientelism, conduct creating or exploiting conflicting interests,” he submitted.
“The factum of corruption in the judiciary has been stated in Parliamentary Committee reports on Prevention of Corruption, has been commented upon by former judges of this Hon’ble Court, has been taken note of in various judgments of this Hon’ble court and High Courts in the country and courts in foreign jurisdictions and commented upon by Constitutional experts,” he stated.