Addressing the court on more important issues arising from the decade-long contempt proceedings against the attorney Prashant Bhushan For his statement alleging that half of the last 16 CJIs were corrupt, Venugopal told a court of justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari that the abuse of the right to freedom of expression “has assumed serious proportions today.”
In what appeared to be an obvious reference to the actor’s report Sushant Singh RajputThe death by suicide and ancillary issues of the television channels, said the attorney general, “a bail petition is filed in a court of law and the television channels go to the city with private WhatsApp conversation messages from the defendant. This it is detrimental to the rights of the accused. accused and is very dangerous for the administration of justice. ”
Venugopal also referred to the publication of articles in the form of warnings to the CV before it was scheduled to deliver important verdicts. “Whenever a major case is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court, major articles are published in the newspapers discussing the pros and cons of possible decisions and the course of action to be taken by the court. The authors of the) articles also advise the Supreme Court which decisions would meet the public’s expectations. All of this is prohibited. These issues need to be discussed, “said the AG. The comment seemed to be aimed at the trend of activists, high-level lawyers and former judges who publish their views on what the court should do in important cases, although the Attorney General declined to make a specific reference.
Last week, while listening to a petition that sought preventive and punitive measures to stop the transmission and circulation of Hate speech Against Muslims, a CJI-led bank had reacted sharply to the suggestion that these were issues related to freedom of expression. “Freedom of expression is the most abused freedom these days,” the CJI he had said on October 8.
The focus, which represents a confluence of views of the court and the attorney general, is the consequences of the contempt case against Bhushan, who has defended himself by invoking the right to freedom of expression. Appearing on behalf of Bhushan, lead counsel Rajeev Dhavan said that potential questions arising in the case, including the limits of the SC’s discretionary contempt suo motu powers under article 129 of the Constitution, should be addressed in a frayed manner in juxtaposition with the scope of the Contempt of Court Act. .
Dhavan said that the means of communication and the outlines of information, especially in the trials of criminal cases, have already been established by a court of five CS judges in the Sahara case. However, the other part related to the right to freedom of expression is broad and genuine comments about judges and the judiciary should be allowed. “Can we say today that the press cannot cover the criminal trial in the Shylock case?” I ask.
The court asked the attorney general, Dhavan and Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the other contestant, Tarun Tejpal, to discuss and finalize the issues of law to be debated in the CS prior to sentencing in the contempt case against Bhushan, who already has been found guilty. of committing contempt by tweeting “false and malicious” statements against current and four former CJI. He paid the fine of Re 1 to avoid the alternative penalty of three months in prison and three years of disqualification. However, Bhushan has already submitted two requests for his conviction and sentence to be reviewed.
.
