LexAMICUS CURIE versus PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 723 AMICUS CURIAE v. PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. (Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 10 of 2009) JULY 14. 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A B CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1975: C rr. 3(a) and (c) - Contempt proceedings - Maintainability of - Application by amicus curaie before the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India, drawing the attention of the Court to certain statements reported in a magazine alleging 0 corruption in judiciary, and, in particular, higher judiciary, and also making serious imputation against a sitting Judge of the Court - Directions given to-issue notice and to post the matter before a three-Judge Bench - Plea that the order issuing notice being neither on suo motu cognizance taken by the Court nor on a petition made by either of the persons mentioned in r.3(b) but, the petition having been made by amicus curaie under r.3(c) was not maintainable - Held: E Merely because the information regarding the alleged contemptuous statements was furnished to the Court by the Amicus Curiae, the proceedings cannot lose its nature or F character as suo motu proceedings - Primarily, certain information was brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of India on which action was taken - Thus, notwithstanding the prayer in the application made by the Amicus Curiae, the Chief Justice of India took cognizance and directed notice to G issue thereupon - The issues involved in these proceedings have far greater ramifications and impact on the administration of justice and the justice delivery system and 723 H 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A the credibility of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the general public than what was under consideration in either Ouda's case* or Bal Thackrey's case** - Even though suo motu cognizance was taken in this case, this is one of those rare cases where, even if the cognizance is deemed to have been s taken in terms or r. 3 (c) of the Rules, without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, the proceedings must be held to be maintainable - Thus, on prima facie satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds for taking action on its own motion, the Court ·1itiated suo motu action by c directing issue of notice to the respondents - Therefore, the instant contempt proceeding was initiated by the Court on its own motion and it is neither covered by clauses (a}, (b) and (c) of sub-s. (1) of s.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 nor by clauses (b} and (c) of r. 3 of the Rules, but is covered 0 by clause (a) of r. 3 of the Rules - The proceedings are maintainable - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - ss. 15 and 23 - Constitution of India, 1950 -·Articles 129 and 145. *P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 167; **Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors. (2005) 1 E SCC 254, referred to. F G H Case Law Reference: (1988) 3 sec 167 (2005) 1 sec 254 referred to referred to para 8 para 9 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : (Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 10 of 2009). IN I.A. No. 1324, 1474 & 2134 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No. 202 of 1995. AMICUS CURIAE v. PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. 725 Harish N. Salve, (A.C.), Ram Jethamalani, Shanti Bhushan, A A.D.N. Rao, Meenakshi Grover, Kamini Jaiswal, Divyesh Pratap Singh, P.R. Mala, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Pranav Diesh, Mazag Andrabi, Mayank Mishra, Abhishek Sood, Vivek Bishnoi, Rohit Kumar Singh for the appearing parties. B The order of the Court was delivered by ORDER ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. During the course of hearing of certain Interlocutory Applications in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of C 1995, an application was filed by the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate, drawing the attention of this Court to certain statements made by Respondent No.1, Shri Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate, which was reported in Tehelka magazine, of which Shri Tarun J. Tejpal, the o Respondent No.2, was the Editor-in-Chief. The learned Amicus Curiae drew the attention of the Court to certain statements which had been made by the Respondent No.1 in an interview given to Ms. Shoma Chaudhury, wherein various statements were made alleging corruption in the judiciary and, in particular, E the higher judiciary, without any material in supp6rt thereof. In the interview he went on to say that although he did not have any proof for his allegations, half of the la
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.