The Supreme Court on Wednesday held maintainable the initiation of contempt proceedings against advocate Prashant Bhushan for his interview in Tehelka levelling allegations of corruption against its sitting judges.
A Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H.L. Dattu, while deciding the preliminary question of maintainability of the suo motu contempt proceedings, said the matter would now be decided on its merits.
The Bench asked the parties to file replies and additional documents and posted the matter for a final hearing on November 10. It asked senior counsel and amicus curiae Harish Salve to assist the court. In his interview to the magazine, Mr. Bhushan also alleged that Justice S.H. Kapadia (now Chief Justice of India) — who had shares in the Sterlite company, a subsidiary of Vedanta — decided the case of Niyamgiri mining lease in Orissa in favour of Sterlite.
Acting on an application from Mr. Salve that Mr. Bhushan's statements eroded the public confidence in the judiciary and “are contemptuous per se ,” the court in November last issued a suo motu contempt notice to Mr. Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal, Editor of Tehelka . The application said that “in relation to the allegations against Justice Kapadia, the respondent [Mr. Bhushan] has indulged in half-truths.”
Questioning the maintainability of the petition, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Mr. Bhushan, argued that the court should not have issued the notice by taking a decision on its judicial side, based on a private complaint. The amicus curiae ought to have got approval from the Attorney-General for seeking contempt action.
Under the Rules, counsel said, the Attorney-General himself could initiate contempt proceedings or give another person sanction, after applying his mind, for initiating contempt proceedings. But in the present case, neither the Attorney-General's opinion nor his sanction had been obtained.
Senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing for Mr. Tejpal, said that before initiating the contempt proceedings, the application ought to have been presented to the CJI in his chamber for him to take a decision in his administrative capacity. It could not be presented in the court for passing a judicial order, he contended.
