India Tomorrow
New Delhi, Feb 6— In a hearing that saw a rare difference of opinion between the Centre and the Attorney General (AG), the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to public interest lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan on the two separate contempt petitions filed against him over his tweets stating that the AG had misled the Court by submitting that the appointment of interim CBI Director Nageshwar Rao had the approval of the High Powered Selection Committee.
A Bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha agreed to consider the larger issue of advocates making comments on a sub-judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion, while serving the notice. Advocate Bhushan has accepted the notice and assured that the court that he will file a reply. He was present in the court at the time of the notice being served.
However, the Centre and the AG KK Venugopal differed in their approach over the course to be taken in the contempt proceedings. While, the Centre essentially submitted that Mr. Bhushan be punished for contempt, AG Venugopal did not press for imposition of any punishment, but asserted that the court should decide on the extent to which a lawyer can make statements in the media in a matter which is sub-judice.
While the contempt petition filed by the AG in the Court, submitted that Mr. Bhushan deliberately intended to cast aspersions on his integrity and honesty in placing the minutes of the meeting during the hearing, in another contempt petition filed by the Centre, the latter asserted that “such an act by a counsel of making false and irresponsible allegations on a public platform, rather than raising his grievances, if any, before this Hon’ble Court, is grossly contumacious and warrants punishment by this Court,” reported LiveLaw.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre said, “The Attorney General is magnanimous. But the Centre wants Bhushan punished as this is not the first instance he has done this.” To that, the top court replied that the charge of “contempt is a bramhastra, it should not be used ordinarily,” adding that “punishment to a lawyer should be the last resort,” as reported by NDTV.
“What is law on the issue?” the Bench asked AG over the legal provisions on the issue. “What should we expect from lawyers in a sub-judice matter and whether there could be public discussion like TV debate in sub-judice case,” the Bench asked while stating that “We are not averse to media reporting on court proceedings but the lawyers involved in a case should resist from making public statement in sub-judice matter.”
“We are on the larger issue. The time has come to settle the issue. It has been noticed that’s sometime the lawyers can’t control the temptation to go to media. Bar has been protecting the Institution but now it is different”, said Justice Mishra. The next hearing on the issue will be on March 7.
