KK Venugopal and Prashant Bhushan
Attorney General KK Venugopal has denied his consent for a lawyer, Sunil Kumar Singh, to file a criminal contempt case against lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan in the Supreme Court for his October 21 tweet that “the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court , SA Bobde, traveled in a helicopter provided by the MP government to visit Kanha National Park and his hometown in a time bank run by him was listening to a case in which the fate of the BJP government in the state depended. “
AG declined permission claiming that Bhushan had expressed his regret through a tweet dated November 4, 2020, and also because MLA Congressman Vinay Saxena had withdrawn his case from the supreme court after the disqualification issue of 22 MLA of the rebel Congress to become unsuccessful after the recent midterm elections.
But very significantly, the Attorney General fully agreed with the argument of the complainant, Sunil Kumar Singh, that Bhushan’s tweet was in very bad shape and concluded that it was “totally unjustified, improper, baseless. legal and prima facie contuma “.
“I am of the opinion that the allegations contained in three tweets to the effect that the Chief Justice of India committed a wrongful act by accepting the MP state facilities during his visit to Kanha National Park while it was a case concerning the disqualification of certain state MLAs pending before him were totally unjustified, devoid of legal basis and prima facie obstinate for the following reasons, ”said AG Venugopal’s letter to Singh.
WHY ‘CONTUMACIOUS’?
Reasons cited by the Attorney General in his letter to the plaintiff, SC defender Sunil Kumar Singh, as to why the tweet was ‘totally unjustified, inappropriate, lacking legal basis and prima facie stubborn’:
First of all, the Chief Justice of India is one of the highest constitutional officials in the country and should receive the protocol commensurate with the stature of his office. You are also entitled to ‘Z plus’ security. Furthermore, in terms of the Madhya Pradesh State Guest Rules 2011, the Chief Justice is a “Guest of the State” and therefore has the right to have the facilities for his reception, transportation and shipment. In addition, the Guests of the State have the right to receive adequate security.
Secondly, one must take into account the fact that it has been widely reported in the press that Kanha National Park, from approximately 2016-2017 has been invaded by Maoists, and has seen the presence of nearly 200 armed cadres. . A Hindustan Times report dated September 30, 2020 states that the Maoists, facing pressure from security forces in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, decided to move to the dense and difficult terrain of Kanha in search of a safe haven. The Chief Justice, despite his Z Plus security, would have been extremely vulnerable had he traveled by road in his convoy, with ambulance and other facilities through Kanha National Park. Therefore, it was the most prudent and appropriate measure for the State Government to have the Chief Justice of India transported by helicopter. The imputation of incorrectness, therefore, was improper and without application of the mind to these realities and is stubborn.
Third, the attempt to link the receipt of the facilities to which the Chief Justice of India is entitled in any case, to the processing of a case of disqualification of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh (in forward, “ MLA ”) was also inappropriate. It should be noted that the fate of the Government of Madhya Pradesh did not depend on the outcome of that case, as the previous speaker had already accepted the resignation of these MLAs. With the change of government, the president of the protem rejected the request to disqualify these MLAs, claiming that since their resignations had already been accepted, they had ceased to be members of the Legislative Assembly. In any case, with the departure of those MLAs, the BJP Government became the largest party with 107 MLAs, out of a total of 230 in the House.
CONCLUSION OF AG
The attorney general said: “For these reasons, I initially thought about granting consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. However, I must draw your attention to two subsequent events of importance to my decision in this case. “
He said: “First of all, on 4.11.2020 Mr. Prashant Bhushan, knowing that a request had been made to me as Attorney General, to obtain consent to process a request for contempt in the Supreme Court of India, and realizing that he had filed an error connecting the facilities provided to the Chief Justice by the Madhya Pradesh government with the survival of the government, he had put another tweet into the public domain in the same way as the original tweet. In this subsequent tweet, posted on 4.11.2020, he has expressed regret for the mistake made in his previous tweet of October 21, 2020. He has publicly stated that it was incorrect to state that the fate of the Madhya Pradesh government depended on the case pending before the Chief Justice of India. of 4.11.2020 is as follows:
“Elections were held yesterday for the seats of the defected Cong deputies who were appointed ministers in the Shivraj government. The survival of the Shivraj government will depend on their re-election, not on the decision of the case in the CJI court. I contest his ministry. I am sorry for this error in my tweet below. “
Secondly, on the same day, i.e. 4.11.2020, the petitioner has withdrawn the case concerning the disqualification of former members of parliament in the state of Madhya Pradesh for having become unsuccessful. Sh. Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, made this statement before the Supreme Court, which recorded “The leading scholarly attorney appearing on behalf of the petitioner claims that the matter has become unsuccessful. In view of the above, the request for a special license is discarded as having become unsuccessful. ”
The AG further said: “In these circumstances, I do not believe it is in the public interest to consent to proceed on the basis of the original tweet in view of the subsequent tweet expressing regret. Consequently, I decline consent.”
