[ad_1]
Sensitive particulars of cases pending in courtroom make their means to the media and are printed on penultimate days of courtroom hearings, threatening to injure the rights of events, says {K}.{K}. Venugopal
Attorney General {K}.{K}. Venugopal requested the Supreme Court on Tuesday to look at how delicate particulars of sub judice cases (cases pending in courtroom) made their means to the media and have been printed on penultimate days of courtroom hearings, threatening to injure the rights of events.
“When a bail application is coming up, there are conversations on TV very damaging to the accused… On the day Rafale [case] is argued, an article with documents is published. The issue of sub judice has to be contended,” Mr. Venugopal advised a Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.
The submission was made whereas listening to a contempt case towards civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan for feedback he made about Supreme Court judges in an interview to Tehelka journal in 2009.
But senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, for Mr. Bhushan, mildly quoted his Shakespeare at Mr. Venugopal’s views.
“When Shylock’s case is going on, can we tell the Press not to talk about it?” Mr. Dhavan mentioned.
“If we get into the sub judice issue, we will get into Sahara judgment, which does not ban comment. Other thing is this is an extremely wide area,” Mr. Dhavan submitted.
Case shifted to Nov.
The courtroom requested the senior legal professionals to coordinate and “refine” the problems which wanted to be examined. The case was shifted to November.
In September, the case got here to Justice Khanwilkar’s Bench after the retirement of Justice Arun Mishra, who had headed the Bench. Justice Khanwilkar invited the Attorney General to help the courtroom as amicus curiae.
The contempt case towards Mr. Bhushan has introduced to focus pertinent questions of regulation, together with whether or not an individual who expresses a bona fide opinion about judicial corruption was obliged to show it or “whether it is enough to show that he bona fide held that opinion”.
This case additionally concerned the difficulty whether or not the suo motu powers of the Supreme Court to provoke contempt underneath Article 129 of the Constitution to curtail free speech and expression is restrained by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Mr. Dhavan has strongly pitched for these questions to be referred to a Constitution Bench.
Also learn: Contempt case assertion by Prashant Bhushan issued on August 20, 2020
One of the questions additionally offers with the violation of due course of as suo motu contempt proceedings within the Supreme Court has no provision for enchantment. The courtroom additionally needed to hear arguments on laying down a process to be adopted if statements of judicial corruption are made in public towards sitting in addition to retired judges.
“Allegation of corruption per se cannot be contempt because the same pertains to criticism of a judge for a biased dispensation of justice and would in all cases require further investigation before such allegations are brushed aside at the threshold,” Mr. Bhushan had defined in his written submissions within the case.
He had mentioned fact was a defence underneath Section 13 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Mr. Bhushan mentioned he had used the phrase ‘corruption’ within the interview in a wider sense to embody any act of impropriety aside from merely monetary corruption.
“Corruption in public life has a wide and expansive definition. Corruption is not restricted to pecuniary gratification alone but various instruments identify its particular forms such as bribery, embezzlement, theft, fraud, extortion, abuse of discretion, favouritism, nepotism, clientelism, conduct creating or exploiting conflicting interests,” his written submissions had identified.
[ad_2]
