AMICUS CURIAS Vs. PRASHANT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of hearing of certain Interlocutory Applications in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 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 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, the higher judiciary, without any material in support thereof. In the interview he went on to say that although he did not have any proof for his allegations, half of the last 16 Chief Justices were corrupt. He also made a serious imputation against the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, alleging misdemeanor with regard to the hearing of a matter involving a Company known as Sterlite, in which Justice Kapadia had certain shares, deliberately omitting to mention that the said fact had been made known to the Counsel appearing in the matter, who had categorically stated that they had no objection whatsoever to the matter being heard by His Lordship.

(2.) On 6th November, 2009, when the said facts were placed before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, K.G. Balakrishnan, as His Lordship then was, in which Justice Kapadia was also a member, directions were given to issue notice and to post the matter before a three Judge Bench of which Justice Kapadia was not a member. It should, however, be indicated that Justice Kapadia was not a party to the aforesaid order that was passed. The matter was thereafter placed before us on 19.01.2010 for consideration. On the said date, we requested Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate, to continue to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in the matter which was directed to be listed for further consideration as to whether on the basis of the prayers made in the application, this Court should take suo motu cognizance of the alleged contempt said to have been committed by the respondents - in the application which was numbered as Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 10 of 2009.

(3.) The matter was, thereafter, heard at length by us on the question of maintainability of the contempt proceedings and also on the question as to whether this Court should take suo motu cognizance and proceed accordingly.