NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court accepted the statement of activist lawyer on Thursday Prashant Bhushan to seek help from the Attorney General KK Venugopal in a 2009 contempt case against the defender and journalist Tarun Tejpal.
In November 2009, the high court had issued notices of contempt of Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly criticizing some practicing judges and former high court judges in an interview for the news magazine ‘Tehelka’. Tejpal was the editor of the magazine.
The matter was raised via videoconference in court by Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna.
Senior lawyer Rajeev dhavan, who appeared on behalf of Bhushan, said that more important legal issues would be addressed in the matter and that the assistance of the Attorney General was needed.
“We want the Attorney General to help this court deal with the questions that we asked him and the court asked some questions as well,” Dhavan said, adding that they had submitted some questions for consideration in the matter.
The court ordered that the full records of the matter be turned over to the Attorney General’s office and publish the matter for hearing on October 12.
On August 31, the high court had imposed a “nominal fine” of Re 1 on Bhushan, who was convicted of criminal contempt in a separate case for his two tweets against the judiciary, saying he has attempted to “denigrate the reputation of the institution”. of the administration of justice ”.
In the 2009 contempt case, on August 25 the higher court decided to refer the matter to another court to deal with certain more important issues related to freedom of expression and the filing of corruption charges against the judiciary.
Dhavan had told the court that they had raised ten issues of constitutional importance and that they should be dealt with by a constitutional court.
On August 25, the court had not held the hearing due to time constraints as Judge Arun Mishra, who was heading the court, was resigning from his post on September 2.
The court had not agreed with Dhavan’s submissions that he should seek help from the Attorney General in dealing with the issues raised and said “it is best left to the appropriate court”, which will be established by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. India.
Dhavan had said that the questions raised by Bhushan included the question of whether good faith opinions on corruption also constitute contempt of court and “whether it is sufficient to show a good faith opinion or whether it is necessary for the person to prove the accusation of corruption.
They also included whether a complainant is prohibited from discussing the content of his complaint in the public domain if an internal investigation is initiated, among others, he had said.
On August 17, the high court asked certain questions and asked the parties to address them on three issues: whether such statements about corruption can be made against judges or the judiciary, under what circumstances can they be done, and what is the procedure to be followed. follow. adopted with respect to sitting and retired judges.
Bhushan had also submitted 10 questions on his own and sought adjudication from a constitutional court.
“Whether expressing a genuine opinion on the extent of corruption in any section of the judiciary would amount to contempt of court,” Bhushan’s statement read.
“If the answer to the question is affirmative, if the person who expresses such an opinion on the extent of corruption in a section of the judiciary is obliged to prove that his opinion is correct or if it is sufficient to show that it is in good faith. that opinion, “said the second question.
He had also asked eight other questions related to freedom of expression and the breadth and scope of the desacato powers.
In response to the 2009 contempt case, Bhushan had previously told the higher court that bringing corruption charges against judges would not amount to contempt of court and that the mere expression of a corruption charge could not be contempt of court.
.
