Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 25
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to check with an applicable Bench the query of battle between proper to free speech and suo motu contempt powers of courtroom arising from a 2009 contempt case towards activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan who had referred to as half of 16 former CJIs “corrupt”.
A Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra directed that the matter be positioned earlier than an applicable Bench on September 10 after senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing Bhushan, stated these points wanted to be determined by a bigger Bench.
“Let these issues be left to a different Bench then. In any case, this matter needs extensive hearing,” stated Justice Mishra.
Dhawan requested the Bench to concern discover to the Attorney General so he can help the courtroom on the authorized points concerned.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing former Tehelka journal editor Tarun Tejpal, additionally supported the rivalry that these points must be examined by a bigger Bench.
“We may come and go… but the institution must be protected…,” he submitted.
The Bench stated, “It’s not a question of punishment alone… it’s a question of faith in the institution…. When people come to the court for relief, when that faith is shaken that’s a problem.”
Justice Mishra stated a brand new Bench will take a name on these points as he was demiting workplace early subsequent month. The matter might be listed earlier than applicable Bench on September 10.
On August 17, the Bench had stated it wished to provide a quietus to the 2009 case. However, it had famous that bigger questions rising from the case wanted to be addressed and determined.
Bhushan is already convicted in one other contempt case for scandalising the judiciary by his tweets towards CJI SA Bobde and 4 final CJIs. He had refused to apologise and the highest courtroom is predicted to pronounce sentence.
Bhushan had additionally refused to tender an apology within the 2009 case and issued an announcement expressing remorse.
“In my interview to Tehelka in 2009, I have used the word corruption in a wide sense meaning lack of propriety. I did not mean only financial corruption or deriving any pecuniary advantage. If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same,” he had stated.
“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. I regret if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that is, lower the reputation of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which could never have been my intention at all,” his assertion additional learn.