New Delhi, September 10
The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the plea of activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan to hunt the help of Attorney General Okay Okay Venugopal in a 2009 contempt case towards the advocate and journalist Tarun Tejpal.
The apex courtroom had in November 2009 issued contempt notices to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former prime courtroom judges in an interview to information journal ‘Tehelka’.
Tejpal was the editor of the journal.
The matter got here up for listening to by way of video-conferencing earlier than a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, showing for Bhushan, mentioned that bigger questions of legislation could be handled within the matter and help of Attorney General was required to be taken.
“We want the Attorney General to assist this court in dealing with the questions given by us and the court had also framed some questions,” Dhavan mentioned, including that that they had given some questions for consideration within the matter.
The bench directed that complete data of the matter be served to the workplace of the Attorney General and posted the matter for listening to on October 12.
On August 31, the apex courtroom had imposed a “nominal fine” of Re 1 on Bhushan, who was convicted for legal contempt in a separate case for his two tweets towards the judiciary, saying he has tried to “denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice”.
In the 2009 contempt case, the highest courtroom had on August 25 determined to refer the matter to a different bench to cope with sure bigger questions associated to freedom of speech and levelling of corruption fees towards the judiciary.
Dhavan had instructed the courtroom that 10 questions of constitutional significance have been raised by them and so they wanted to be handled by a structure bench.
On August 25, the courtroom had not undertaken the listening to as a consequence of paucity of time as Justice Arun Mishra, who was heading the bench, was a demitting workplace on September 2.
The courtroom had not agreed to Dhavan’s submissions that it ought to search the help of the Attorney General in coping with the problems raised and mentioned that “it’s best left to the suitable Bench” which will probably be arrange by the Chief Justice of India.
Dhavan had mentioned that questions raised by Bhushan included the difficulty whether or not bona fide opinions of corruption additionally represent contempt of courtroom and “whether or not it is sufficient to present bonafide of opinion or it’s mandatory for the particular person to show the allegation of corruption.
They additionally included whether or not a complainant is barred from discussing within the public area the contents of his grievance if an in-house inquiry is began, amongst others, he had mentioned.
On August 17, the highest courtroom had framed sure questions and requested the events to deal with it on three issues– whether or not such statements about corruption towards judges or judiciary could be made, in what circumstances they are often made and what’s the process to be adopted with respect to sitting and retired judges.
Bhushan had additionally filed 10 questions on his personal and sought adjudication by a structure bench.
“Whether the expression of a bona fide opinion about the extent of corruption in any section of the judiciary would amount to contempt of court,” Bhushan’s plea had mentioned.
“If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, whether the person who expresses such an opinion about the extent of corruption in a section of the judiciary is obliged to prove that his opinion is correct or whether it is enough to show that he bona fide held that opinion,” the second query learn.
He had additionally given eight different questions associated to freedom of speech and expression and the width and scope of contempt powers.
In response to the 2009 contempt case, Bhushan had earlier instructed the apex courtroom that making corruption fees towards judges wouldn’t quantity to contempt of courtroom and mere utterance of corruption cost couldn’t be contempt of courtroom. –PTI