Premium
This is an archive article published on August 9, 2020

Registry does not list Bhushan plea before Justice Mishra bench, SC seeks explanation

The plea by Ram, Shourie and Bhushan was listed for August 10 before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and KM Joseph, but has since been “deleted” from the list of business.

On July 22, the court had issued notice to Bhushan in the case over the tweets and fixed August 5 for hearing. (File)

The Supreme Court has sought answers from its Registry for listing a petition filed by veteran journalists N Ram and Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, before a bench different from the one that is already seized of two criminal contempt cases against Bhushan. The plea by Ram, Shourie and Bhushan was listed for August 10 before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and KM Joseph, but has since been “deleted” from the list of business. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari had heard arguments on August 4 and 5 in two criminal contempt cases against Bhushan and reserved orders on them.While one case relates to two of Bhushan’s tweets dated June 27 and 29 this year, the other dates back to 2009 over remarks he made in an interview to Tehelka magazine.

Read | SC reserves order on contempt case against Prashant Bhushan

On July 22, the court had issued notice to Bhushan in the case over the tweets and fixed August 5 for hearing. On July 24, it fixed August 4 to hear the 2009 matter.

Story continues below this ad

After the dates had been fixed for hearing the two contempt cases, Bhushan filed a fresh writ petition, challenging the notice issued to him in the case related to his tweets. It was listed, along with the contempt case over the tweets, before the bench headed by Justice Mishra on August 5, and was dismissed. Another writ petition was filed by Ram, Shourie and Bhushan, challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 2 (c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Read | Prashant Bhushan refuses to apologise: Regret if misunderstood

This was listed for August 10 before the bench of Justices Chandrachud and Joseph.

Supreme Court sources said as per “established practice and procedure”, the petition by Ram and others, which was filed in the wake of the hearing of the two contempt cases and Bhushan’s writ, should have also been listed before the bench already seized of a “similar matter”.

The Registry officials concerned will now have to explain why the procedure was “ignored”.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
>
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement