On August 30, the Supreme Court closed the 2009 contempt case initiated against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelkar editor Tarun Tejpal, over Bhushan’s interview given to Tehelka magazine in which he said that several previous Chief Justices of India were corrupt, reported LiveLaw.

A bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, Surya Kant and MM Sundresh closed the proceedings initiated for making remarks against past CJIs, in view of the explanation given by Prashant Bhushan and that an apology has been tendered by Tarun Tejpal, as informed by Senior Advocate Kamini Jaiswal appearing for Bhushan and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Tarun Tejpal.

The bench reportedly stated, “In view of the apology tendered by the contemnors, we do not deem it necessary to proceed with the contempt. The contempt proceedings are dropped.”

This case pertains to Bhushan’s interview to Tehelka magazine in 2009 wherein he had allegedly made statements about corruption against SC judges. Bhushan had allegedly implied that at least half of the 16 previous Chief Justices were corrupt, but he could not provide any evidence to support his claims. The SC took up the case suo moto after senior advocate Harish Salve filed a complaint.

In January 2010, a bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and HL Dattu issued notices to Bhushan as well as Tehelka’s then Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal. The contempt petition was held maintainable by a three-judge bench in November 2010 and after that it was heard 17 times.

On August 4, 2020, the court asked Bhushan’s lawyer if he was willing to tender an apology. But Bhushan declined and offered an explanation instead, insisting that his words were misunderstood. In a press release, Bhushan clarified, “In my interview to Tehelka in 2009 I have used the word corruption in a wide sense meaning lack of propriety. I did not mean only financial corruption or deriving any pecuniary advantage. If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same. I unreservedly state that I support the institution of the judiciary and especially the Supreme Court of which I am a part, and had no intention to lower the prestige of the judiciary in which I have complete faith. I regret if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that is, lower the reputation of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which could never have been my intention at all.”

In August 2020, the Supreme Court had found Bhushan guilty of contempt over some of his tweets and fined him a token Re. 1. The Court had held that his tweets were based on distorted facts and constituted a scurrilous/malicious attack on the entire Supreme Court and had the effect of destabilising the very foundation of the judiciary, reported the Indian Express.

The court, while making a final reference to the two tweets, the court stated, “It is not expected of a person who is a part of the system of administration of justice and who owes a duty to the said system, to make such tweets which are capable of shaking the confidence of general public and further making wild allegations in the affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the said institution.”

The court further held that “Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the Court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer.  When the criticism turns into malicious and scandalous allegations thereby tending to undermine the confidence of the public and the institution as a whole, such a criticism cannot be ignored.”

The court had referred to the press conference held by former senior most judges of the Supreme Court on January 12, 2018. Bhushan had justified his averments based on this press conference. The court opined, “We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges. It would cause suffering to them till eternity.”

Related:

Prashant Bhushan contempt case: The judgment behind the Re. 1 penalty
Prashant Bhushan contempt sentencing: Court should forgive him or warn him, says AG
SC grants Prashant Bhushan time before sentencing
I submit to any penalty which the court may inflict: Prashant Bhushan
SC holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt; next hearing to decide sentence
SC to hear 2009 contempt of court case against Prashant Bhushan on merits

The post Supreme Court closes contempt case against Prashant Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to grant sanction to initiate contempt proceedings against former Chief Justice of India and Rajya Sabha member Ranjan Gogoi, for his statements against the judiciary, reported Bar & Bench.

The AG has said that it is true that the former CJI did make some strong statements about the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India, and “the statements apparently reflect his deep frustration with the ills that undoubtedly beset the judicial system”, tweeted Saket Gokhale who sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against Ranjan Gogoi.

AG Venugopal further said, “I had the occasion to watch the entirety of the interview. It is obvious that all that has been said was for the good of the institution and will not in any manner scandalise the court or lower its authority in the eyes of the public.”

On February 23, the RTI activist Gokhale had posted on his Twitter account that he had written to the Attorney General of India to bring to his notice the alleged insulting remarks made by the former CJI against the top court.

Have written to Attorney General for India seeking sanction for contempt of court proceedings against former CJI Gogoi for statements made at the India Today Conclave.

Sanction was given for harmless tweets by @kunalkamra88 & @sanitarypanels.

Why should a former CJI be special? pic.twitter.com/hiDwNBE6d8

— Saket Gokhale (@SaketGokhale) February 23, 2021

In a conclave event organised by India Today on February 12, Ranjan Gogoi had made the following statements, that were laid down by Gokhale in his letter to the Attorney General:

“You want a 5 trillion-dollar economy, but you have a ramshackled judiciary.”

“If you were to go to court, you’d only be washing your dirty linen in court. You won’t get a verdict. I have no hesitation in saying it.”

“Only corporations willing to take chances with their millions of rupees go to the Supreme Court.”

“What is your opinion of the judiciary? Not very positive.”

“The judicial system has not worked for more reason than one.”

“Unfortunately, there are many judges succumbing to criticism made in the media.”

In the letter, Saket Gokhale also stated that the precedent established set by the office, against comedian Kunal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja is a “benchmark for what constitutes contempt of court in your (KK Venugopal) opinion.” Hence, he was requested to take into account Justice Gogoi’s statements that were “far more contemptuous in their degree and seriousness in scandalising the supreme court” than some innocuous tweets.

Related:

Public’s faith in judiciary is founded on its own actions, not criticism: Kunal Kamra to SC
SC issues contempt notices to Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra
Stand up comic Kunal Kamra faces contempt charges for tweets

The post Attorney General denies consent for contempt case against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The top court has decided to proceed with contempt proceedings against comic illustrator Rachita Taneja and comedian Kunal Kamra for their tweets against the Supreme Court and the judiciary, reported Bar & Bench.

The 3-judge Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah decided on several petitions filed against the two over their tweets but allowed them to not appear physically. They are also supposed to respond to the notice within six weeks.

Yesterday, on December 17, the court had reserved its verdict on whether or not to issue them notices. Taneja who runs the page Sanitary Panels, a social media webcomic taking a distinct feminist angle has been accused of “threatening the very existence of the Supreme Court of India”. In one of her impugned tweets, she referred to the top court as the “Sanghi Court of India”.

In Kunal Kamra’s matter, the Attorney General of India granted consent to proceed against his tweets that called the Supreme court, a supreme joke of India. His tweet, “DY Chandrachud is a flight attendant serving champagne to first class passengers after they’re fast tracked through, while commoners don’t know if they’ll ever be boarded or seated, let alone served”, has come under strict scrutiny too.

Ironically, Justice D.Y Chandrachud, while hearing the petition filed by Arnab Goswami challenging the Bombay High Court which denied him interim bail, had expressed his displeasure at the way high courts were exercising their jurisdiction in upholding personal liberty.

“People are in jail for tweets!”, he had remarked. Both Taneja and Kamra had criticised the top court for the manner in which it had fast-tracked Arnab Goswami’s bail plea in an abetment to suicide case with prominent human rights activists still waiting for their matter to get listed.

The matter is now expected to be heard after six weeks, tentatively.

Related:

SC to decide on contempt notices against Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra
Stick figure cartoons are a contempt of the Supreme Court!

The post SC issues contempt notices to Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In yet another statement issued in solidarity with senior advocate and human rights defender Prashant Bhushan, a group called Citizens for Democracy has urged the Supreme Court to recall its judgment in the contempt of court case related to Bhushan’s tweets.

The statement signed by S.R.Hiremath, N.D.Pancholi and other members nd office bearers of the group says, “It is a matter of grave concern that the Supreme Court has held the well known lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court on account of his two tweets. The judgment of the Supreme Court is an assault on the freedom of speech.”

The statement further says, “The tweets made by Prashant Bhushan were expression of anguish felt by thousands of victimized citizens who are at the receiving end of the brutal state power and who cry and hope for judicial protection.”

It implores the SC to reconsider its decision saying, “The people look upon the Supreme Court as citadel of justice and bulwark of democracy. We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will continue to play its assigned role with fearlessness, fairness and objectivity. We urge upon the Hon’ble Court to ignore the tweets and recall its decision holding Prashant Bhushan guilty.

The entire statement may be read here: 

Related:

Prashant Bhushan is an undeclared conscience keeper of the highest court: Odisha intellectuals
SC: Prashant Bhushan held guilty for contempt of court [full judgement]
A silenced Bar cannot lead to a strong court:  Lawyers write to SC

The post Citizens for Democracy urges SC to reconsider decision on Prashant Bhushan appeared first on SabrangIndia.