The Supreme Court has refused to accept lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan’s regret in a case of contempt over his remarks in a 2009 interview in which he had said that eight of the previous 16 CJIs were corrupt. The Supreme Court also said it needed to check whether ‘corrupt Chief Justices’ remark amounts to contempt of court.
Thus, the 11-year-old contempt case against Prashant Bhushan will continue, the Supreme Court said. The bench has posted the matter for hearing next Monday.
A bench, comprising justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari and headed by Justice Arun Mishra, said that it will hear the matter and deal with the issue of whether comment on corruption against judges per se amounted to contempt or not.
On August 4, the Supreme Court had made clear to Prashant Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal, then editor of the magazine, that it would hear the case against them if it does not accept their “explanation” or “apology” in the case.
Senior lawyer Shanthi Bhushan had requested the Supreme Court to list the case after the physical hearings resume. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree. It said the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan will continue.
The Supreme Court in November 2009, had issued a contempt notice to Prashant Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview in 2009.
During the last hearing on August 4, the bench told senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Prashant Bhushan that there was a thin line between freedom of speech and expression, and the contempt of court.
“You have stood for freedom of speech and expression but it may be the case that you might have crossed the thin line of contempt. How do we save the grace of this system? I want to know from you as an amicus so that we can avoid this conflict. Suggest us some way out as the system also belongs to you,” the bench had said.
In a statement, Prashant Bhushan had then said he 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,” he had said.