Advocate facing contempt for taking on CJ collapses

The medical staff from the Supreme Court dispensary was rushed to his aid. After doing a preliminary examination in the courtroom, they said his pulse was normal.

But, as a result of this dramatic interruption, the bench, comprising Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi, adjourned the proceedings to December 6.

Earlier, former law minister Ram Jethmalani sought to intervene in the matter because of the order passed yesterday directing the CBI to probe the genuineness of a letter from the General Council of Bar in England annexed in his recent book, Big Egos Small Men. The letter said that Anand’s year of birth was 1934, which implied that he had attained the retirement age last year.

Asserting that the letter was genuine, his counsel, Shanti Bhushan, said: “Jethmalani is not saying that the Chief Justice’s year of birth could not be 1936, but to say that the document was not genuine is some other thing.” Bhushan argued that by questioning the genuineness of the letter Jethmalani published in his book, the apex court had “destroyed his reputation”.

The court said it would not hear Jethmalani’s intervention application till it was filed in the registry.

Sundaram is facing contempt proceedings because of a telegram he sent to Anand asking him to step down in the light of Jethmalani’s book. He also threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against Anand if he did not quit office.

Solicitor General Harish Salve, who was appointed amicus curae in the matter, said the telegram sent by Sundaram was not an innocent act as he “conveniently looked into the annexure of a book to come to the conclusion that the Chief Justice’s year of birth was 1934 but ignored all other press reports which mentioned several documents which showed the correct date of birth to be November 1, 1936.”

By threatening to launch criminal proceedings against Anand, the advocate has attempted to smear the image of the judiciary, Salve said.

“If one threatens a judge or prevents him from acting in a particular manner, it should be construed as criminal contempt,” he said, adding “the advocate had issued a second threat by asking the Chief Justice to deposit Rs 3 crore with the Government for staying in the post after reaching the age of superannuation or face a civil suit.”