Supreme Court Rejects Prashant Bhushan’s Explanation in Contempt Case, Next Hearing on Aug 17

The SC in November 2009, had issued a contempt notice to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to news magazine Tehelka.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to accept advocate Prashant Bhushan explanation in the 11-year old contempt of court case related to his interview in Tehelka magazine in 2009. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra stated that further hearing was required before passing a judgement in the case.

“Before reaching any finding whether explanation will suffice, the matter will need to be heard,” Justice Mishra asserted. The top court also said that it will deal with the issue of whether comment on corruption against judges per se amounts to contempt or not.

The matter has been listed for another hearing on August 17.

In the previous hearing, Bhushan had expressed regret stating that what he had said in the magazine had caused hurt to many CJIs, but he did not use the word ‘corruption’ to mean financially. The word was used in “wide sense meaning lack of propriety”, he had told the court.

The apex court in November 2009, had issued a contempt notice to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to news magazine Tehelka. Tejpal was the editor of the magazine. The matter was listed on Friday after the last hearing in May 2012.

On July 22, the top court had issued notice to activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in the suo motu (on its own) contempt proceedings initiated against him for his alleged derogatory tweets against the judiciary, saying his statements prima facie “brought the administration of justice in disrepute”.

While referring to recent tweets by Bhushan, the apex court said these statements are prima facie capable of “undermining the dignity and authority” of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.

With PTI inputs