Supreme Court: After it refused to accept the explanation of advocate Prashant Bhushan in the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ has framed larger questions in the matter that will have far-reaching ramifications.
On August 10, 2020, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 635, the Court had noticed that that further hearing was required in the matter.
“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se amount to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard. “
- In case a public statement as to corruption by a particular Judge(s) is permissible, under what circumstances and on what basis, it can be made, and safeguards, if any, to be observed in that regard ?
- What procedure is to be adopted to make complaint in such cases when the allegation is about the conduct of a sitting Judge ?
- Whether against retired Judge(s), any allegation as to corruption can be made publicly, thereby shaking the confidence of general public in the judiciary; and whether the same would be punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?
The Court will now hear the matter on August 25, 2020.
[Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 651, order dated 17.08.2020]