On Thursday, the Supreme Court asked Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal to assist the court as Amicus Curiae in the 2009 criminal contempt of court case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan for his comments to a magazine that former chief justices of India (CJI) had been corrupt. . The request was made after Bhushan’s lawyer suggested it.
Amicus Curiae, which literally translates to Friend of the Court, is a neutral attorney appointed by the court to assist you in cases that require specialized knowledge.
Bhushan’s lawyer, Rajiv Dhavan, told the court on Thursday that AG Venugopal should be heard as Amicus Curiae in the case considering the fact that it involves pertinent legal questions related to whether allegations about a judge’s conduct can be made in public. or not. .
In a different contempt case involving Bhushan, Venugopal, on August 25, told the court that several former SC judges had referred to corruption in the judiciary and asked the court, which had already found Bhushan guilty of contempt in his sentence of August 14, to leave him out with a warning. Earlier, on August 20, the Attorney General mentioned a 1987 speech he delivered on the judiciary, where he referred to rumors of corruption and nepotism in the judiciary before the court in the same case, before being interrupted by the court. .
On Thursday, a three-judge bench headed by Judge AM Khanwilkar asked the court registry to provide a copy of the case records to the Attorney General’s office and published the case for further consideration in October.
The case against Bhushan stems from an interview given by the activist lawyer to Tehelka magazine in which he claimed that half of the previous 16 CJIs were corrupt. Lead attorney Harish Salve brought this statement to the attention of the court, on the basis of which a contempt action was brought against Bhushan in November 2009.
The case was brought by the high court before a court headed by Judge Arun Mishra on July 24, 2020, more than eight years after his last hearing.
Bhushan declined to apologize for his statement, but offered an explanation to the court for his controversial comment. The high court, on August 10, rejected Bhushan’s explanation and decided to proceed with the case and listen to him in detail.
When the case was heard on August 17, the court said that certain more important legal issues need to be resolved, including the possibility of bringing corruption charges against judges through public statements and the procedure to be adopted when such charges are made against judges. judges. conduct of an acting judge.
On August 25, Bhushan’s lawyer requested that the case be brought before a constitutional court, as it involves substantial legal issues.
However, the three-judge tribunal, which also included judges BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, was unable to bring the case to a final status because Judge Mishra retired from office on September 2.
The matter, from then on, was included in a new court, which in addition to Judge Khanwilkar was also composed of Judges Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna.
When the case was brought before the new court on Thursday, lead attorney Dhavan appeared on behalf of Bhushan and claimed that AG Venugopal had previously expressed its willingness to assist the court.
The high court, on August 31, imposed a fine of Rs. 1 on Bhushan in the other contempt of court case brought against him for tweets criticizing the Supreme Court and the current CJI, SA Bobde. Bhushan also refused to offer an apology in that case despite the opportunities offered by the court.
.
