The 2009 contempt case entails statements that Prashant Bhushan made throughout an interview. (File)
New Delhi:
In a 2009 case involving feedback by lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan on judges, the Supreme Court docket at present requested Chief Justice SA Bobde to put it earlier than an “acceptable bench”. The courtroom has raised a number of inquiries to be examined within the case, together with whether or not one can go public with allegations of corruption in opposition to judges.
“I’m wanting time. I’m demitting workplace. This requires detailed listening to of 4 to 5 hours”, Justice Arun Mishra noticed.
The courtroom listed the case earlier than one other bench on September 10.
Throughout arguments, the Supreme Court docket stated: “It is not a query of punishment, it is a query of religion within the establishment. When individuals come to the courtroom for reduction when that religion is shaken that is an issue.” The judges had been referring to the query of prices of corruption being made public.
Prashant Bhushan’s lawyer Rajeev Dhavan argued that any query in reference to corruption by judges and whether or not alleging it quantities to contempt ought to be examined by a structure bench.
Final week, the Supreme Court docket had stated it’ll look at bigger questions together with below what circumstances allegations of judicial corruption may be made. It additionally talked about inspecting what process have to be adopted in contempt circumstances if allegations of corruption are raised in opposition to sitting and retired judges.
The contempt case entails statements that Prashant Bhushan made throughout an interview to Tehelka journal in 2009, by which he stated half the 16 Chief Justices of India had been corrupt.
Justice Arun Mishra had stated within the earlier listening to: “We wished to complete this. We wished to finish the case, however the fundamental query is – 1) if you wish to converse to the media; 2) in case you could have any grievance in opposition to any decide, what ought to be the method; three) In what circumstances can such allegations be made can also be a query.”
Each Rajeev Dhavan and Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal’s lawyer wished these inquiries to be examined by a structure bench.
Rajeev Dhavan additionally argued that using the phrase corruption doesn’t quantity to contempt of courtroom.
Source link
