‘No.2 Court Had The Authority Under Article 142 To Refer The Bribery Matter To The Constitution Bench’: Shanti Bhushan

Senior​ ​Counsel,​ ​Shanti​ ​Bhushan,​ ​representing​ ​Kamini​ ​Jaiswal,​ ​today submitted​ ​before​ ​the​ ​three-judge​ ​bench​ ​constituted​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​her​ ​petition seeking​ ​independent​ ​probe​ ​into​ ​the​ ​attempt​ ​to​ ​bribe​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​Judges in​ ​a​ ​pending​ ​case,​ ​that​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​Judges​ ​are​ ​not​ ​bound​ ​by​ ​the Supreme​ ​Court​ ​rules​ ​and​ ​Article​ ​142​ ​permitted​ ​them​ ​to​ ​do​ ​complete​ ​justice and​ ​they​ ​can​ ​direct​ ​anything​ ​except​ ​something​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​the​ ​​ ​Constitution.

Relying​ ​on​ ​A.R.Antulay​ ​and​ ​Bhopal​ ​disaster​ ​cases,​ ​Shanti​ ​Bhushan​ ​argued that​ ​under​ ​Article​ ​144,​ ​all​ ​authorities,​ ​civil​ ​and​ ​judicial,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​territory​ ​of India,​ ​mentioned​ ​in​ ​the​ ​provision,​ ​also​ ​included​ ​every​ ​bench​ ​of​ ​the Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​and​ ​their​ ​orders​ ​are​ ​binding​ ​on​ ​all​ ​civil​ ​authorities​ ​including the​ ​Chief​ ​Justice​ ​of​ ​India.​ ​​ ​It​ ​was​ ​his​ ​contention​ ​that​ ​the​ ​hurriedly-formed five​ ​judge​ ​Constitution​ ​bench​ ​on​ ​November​ ​10,​ ​violated​ ​Article​ ​144​ ​of​ ​the Constitution,​ ​by​ ​annulling​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​Justices​ ​J.Chelameswar​ ​and​ ​S.Abdul Nazeer,​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​Kamini​ ​Jaiswal’s​ ​petition​ ​to​ ​be​ ​heard​ ​by​ ​the​ ​first​ ​five Judges​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​seniority,​ ​on​ ​Monday.

Justice​ ​Arun​ ​Mishra,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​three-judge​ ​bench​ ​also comprising​ ​Justices​ ​R.K.Agrawal​ ​and​ ​A.M.Khanwilkar,​ ​told​ ​Shanti​ ​Bhushan that​ ​they​ ​were​ ​on​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​of​ ​propriety,​ ​and​ ​asked​ ​why​ ​Kamini​ ​Jaiswal’s petition​ ​was​ ​mentioned​ ​before​ ​Court​ ​No.2​ ​on​ ​November​ ​9,​ ​when​ ​it​ ​was known​ ​that​ ​a​ ​similar​ ​petition​ ​earlier​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​Campaign​ ​for​ ​Judicial Accountability​ ​and​ ​Reforms​ ​(CJAR)​ ​had​ ​already​ ​been​ ​listed​ ​before​ ​Justices A.K.Sikri​ ​and​ ​Ashok​ ​Bhushan,​ ​for​ ​Friday,​ ​November​ ​10.​ ​​ ​​ ​We​ ​are​ ​on maintainability​ ​of​ ​this​ ​petition,​ ​Justice​ ​Mishra​ ​said,​ ​adding​ ​it​ ​amounts​ ​to forum-shopping.

Shanti​ ​Bhushan​ ​also​ ​explained​ ​that​ ​Justice​ ​Khanwilkar,​ ​who​ ​had​ ​heard along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​CJI​ ​and​ ​Justice​ ​D.Y.​ ​Chandrachud,​ ​the​ ​case​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​Prasad Education​ ​Trust,​ ​allegedly​ ​sought​ ​to​ ​be​ ​influenced​ ​by​ ​bribery,​ ​must​ ​recuse from​ ​hearing​ ​the​ ​petition.   His plea was, however, rejected by the bench.

Prashant Bhushan’s contentions

Prashant​ ​Bhushan,​ ​while​ ​answering​ ​Justice​ ​Mishra’s​ ​questions,​ ​explained that​ ​Justice​ ​Chelameswar,​ ​in​ ​his​ ​oral​ ​order,​ ​on​ ​November​ ​8,​ ​had​ ​directed that​ ​the​ ​CJAR’s​ ​petition​ ​be​ ​listed​ ​before​ ​Court​ ​No.2.​ ​​ ​​ ​However,​ ​Prashant Bhushan​ ​came​ ​to​ ​know​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Registrar​ ​that​ ​the​ ​case​ ​has​ ​been​ ​listed before​ ​Court​ ​No.6,​ ​before​ ​justices​ ​Sikri​ ​and​ ​Ashok​ ​Bhushan​ ​on​ ​November 10,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​directions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CJI.

At​ ​this​ ​point,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​decided​ ​to​ ​mention​ ​Kamini​ ​Jaiswal’s​ ​petition​ ​before Court​ ​No.2​ ​on​ ​November​ ​9,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​was​ ​felt​ ​that​ ​the​ ​CJI​ ​could​ ​not​ ​hear​ ​the matter​ ​on​ ​judicial​ ​side​ ​or​ ​decide​ ​which​ ​bench​ ​should​ ​hear​ ​it.

 Justice​ ​Misra​ ​asked​ ​Prashant​ ​​ ​Bhushan​ ​whether​ ​he,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the​ ​CJI, should​ ​be​ ​exercising​ ​the​ ​discretion​ ​as​ ​to​ ​which​ ​bench​ ​should​ ​hear​ ​it​ ​.

Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​replied​ ​that​ ​Court​ ​No.2​ ​was​ ​exercising​ ​this​ ​authority,​ ​not him.

Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​posed​ ​a​ ​counter​ ​question​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bench​ ​as​ ​to​ ​what​ ​forced the​ ​Constitution​ ​bench​ ​to​ ​interfere​ ​with​ ​Justice​ ​Chelameswar’s​ ​order​ ​of reference​ ​to​ ​first​ ​five​ ​senior-most​ ​Judges,​ ​on​ ​November​ ​10.

When​ ​Justice​ ​Misra​ ​quizzed​ ​Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​first​ ​five Judges​ ​would​ ​also​ ​include​ ​the​ ​CJI,​ ​he​ ​said​ ​in​ ​his​ ​view,​ ​the​ ​CJI​ ​would recuse,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​sixth​ ​senior-most​ ​Judge​ ​would​ ​fill​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vacancy.

Justice​ ​Misra​ ​then​ ​said​ ​that​ ​the​ ​constitution​ ​bench​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be​ ​formed​ ​at​ ​a short​ ​notice,​ ​because​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​time​ ​left​ ​between​ ​Friday​ ​and​ ​Monday, when​ ​the​ ​bench​ ​of​ ​first​ ​five​ ​Judges,​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​the​ ​petition​ ​by​ ​Court No.2​ ​was​ ​to​ ​be​ ​formed.​ ​​ ​But​ ​in​ ​the​ ​whole​ ​country,​ ​Supreme​ ​Court’s​ ​image suffered​ ​a​ ​dent​ ​because​ ​of​ ​a​ ​wrong​ ​impression,​ ​Justice​ ​Misra​ ​hinted.

Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​bench​ ​what​ ​would​ ​have​ ​happened​ ​if​ ​the​ ​first five​ ​Judges​ ​had​ ​met.​ ​​ ​“Why​ ​was​ ​the​ ​tearing​ ​hurry​ ​to​ ​overturn​ ​the​ ​order passed​ ​by​ ​Court​ ​No.2”,​ ​he​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​bench.

In​ ​response,​ ​Justice​ ​Misra​ ​asked​ ​what​ ​was​ ​the​ ​tearing​ ​hurry​ ​to​ ​file​ ​the second​ ​petition​ ​on​ ​November​ ​9,​ ​when​ ​it​ ​was​ ​not​ ​maintainable.

Shanti​ ​Bhushan​ ​reiterated​ ​his​ ​view​ ​that​ ​the​ ​constitution​ ​bench’s​ ​order​ ​on November​ ​10​ ​was​ ​without​ ​jurisdiction.​ ​​ ​Therefore,​ ​he​ ​told​ ​the​ ​bench​ ​that​ ​his prayer​ ​is​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​a​ ​directive​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Registry​ ​to​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​the​ ​order passed​ ​by​ ​Court​ ​No.2,​ ​on​ ​November​ ​9,​ ​by​ ​listing​ ​the​ ​case​ ​before​ ​the​ ​first five​ ​Judges​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Court.​ ​​ ​Otherwise,​ ​he​ ​said,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​appear​ ​that​ ​“this bench​ ​has​ ​no​ ​confidence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​five​ ​senior-most​ ​Judges​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Supreme Court”.

AG’s Intervention

Attorney​ ​General,​ ​K.K.Venugopal,​ ​then​ ​began​ ​his​ ​submissions​ ​saying​ ​that he​ ​was​ ​doing​ ​so​ ​under​ ​Article​ ​76(3)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution,​ ​which​ ​enables​ ​him to​ ​intervene​ ​in​ ​any​ ​case​ ​before​ ​any​ ​court​ ​in​ ​the​ ​country.​ ​​ ​“I​ ​am​ ​here​ ​to​ ​give a​ ​different​ ​picture,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​is​ ​facing​ ​a​ ​crisis”,​ ​he​ ​said.

The​ ​AG​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​Jaiswal’s​ ​petition​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​wedge between​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Bar,​ ​and​ ​as​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​crisis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Court. “The​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​in​ ​haste,​ ​and​ ​wanted​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​into the​ ​bribery​ ​to​ ​proceed​ ​in​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​direction,​ ​with​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​result​ ​in view.”

Justice​ ​Misra​ ​asked​ ​where​ ​we​ ​are​ ​going,​ ​and​ ​how​ ​could​ ​there​ ​be​ ​an aspersion​ ​against​ ​the​ ​Chief​ ​Justice​ ​of​ ​India.​ ​​ ​The​ ​AG​ ​agreed​ ​with​ ​him​ ​just because​ ​a​ ​broker​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​would​ ​fix​ ​a​ ​case,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​hailed​ ​from Orissa,​ ​to​ ​which​ ​the​ ​CJI​ ​also​ ​belongs,​ ​an​ ​inference​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​by​ ​the petitioner,​ ​that​ ​the​ ​needle​ ​of​ ​suspicion​ ​was​ ​against​ ​him.

When​ ​Justice​ ​Misra​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​AG​ ​to​ ​explain​ ​the​ ​meaning​ ​when​ ​the petitioner​ ​told​ ​the​ ​bench​ ​that​ ​it​ ​could​ ​give​ ​whatever​ ​order​ ​it​ ​could,​ ​and leave​ ​the​ ​court,​ ​the​ ​AG​ ​said​ ​perhaps​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​had​ ​no​ ​arguments.

Going​ ​through​ ​the​ ​trajectory​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​the​ ​AG​ ​said​ ​it​ ​appears​ ​that​ ​the bribery​ ​was​ ​attempted​ ​to​ ​secure​ ​an​ ​adverse​ ​order,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​outcome​ ​of​ ​the petition​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​Prasad​ ​Education​ ​Trust​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​went​ ​against​ ​it.

 “A​ ​deep​ ​wound​ ​has​ ​been​ ​caused​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court;​ ​it​ ​would​ ​take​ ​very long​ ​time​ ​to​ ​heal​ ​it”,​ ​the​ ​AG​ ​said.

 Justice​ ​Misra​ ​added​ ​that​ ​the​ ​damage​ ​has​ ​been​ ​done.

 The​ ​AG​ ​said​ ​that​ ​Jaiswal’s​ ​petition​ ​should​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​filed,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​five judges​ ​bench’s​ ​decision​ ​has​ ​become​ ​suspect​ ​in​ ​the​ ​eyes​ ​of​ ​the​ ​people. “We​ ​have​ ​to​ ​build​ ​the​ ​bar​ ​together.​ ​​ ​The​ ​damage​ ​caused​ ​can​ ​be​ ​repaired​ ​if the​ ​petitioner​ ​withdraws​ ​her​ ​petition​ ​unconditionally”,​ ​the​ ​AG​ ​said.

 The​ ​Additional​ ​Solicitor​ ​General, Tushar Mehta, ​ ​in​ ​his​ ​submission,​ ​said​ ​it​ ​is​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​there was​ ​deliberate​ ​suppression​ ​of​ ​the​ ​first​ ​petition​ ​by​ ​the​ ​second​ ​petition,​ ​filed by​ ​Jaiswal.

Prashant Bhushan’s Response

 In​ ​his​ ​response,​ ​Prashant​ ​Bhushan,​ ​explained​ ​that​ ​the​ ​FIR​ ​filed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case did​ ​say​ ​that​ ​a​ ​conspiracy​ ​was​ ​hatched​ ​to​ ​bribe​ ​and​ ​influence​ ​a​ ​judgment pending​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Court.​ ​​ ​“Investigation​ ​may​ ​also​ ​go​ ​into​ ​the​ ​role​ ​and​ ​conduct of​ ​judges​ ​who​ ​dealt​ ​with​ ​this​ ​case.​ ​​ ​As​ ​the​ ​CBI​ ​is​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Government, such​ ​a​ ​sensitive​ ​investigation​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​left​ ​in​ ​the​ ​hands​ ​of​ ​the government-controlled​ ​agency”,​ ​he​ ​said,​ ​justifying​ ​the​ ​prayer​ ​that investigation​ ​must​ ​be​ ​by​ ​a​ ​Special​ ​Investigation​ ​Team,​ ​headed​ ​by​ ​a​ ​former CJI.

 Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​also​ ​said​ ​that​ ​since​ ​this​ ​is​ ​an​ ​important​ ​and​ ​sensitive matter,​ ​it​ ​should​ ​be​ ​dealt​ ​by​ ​senior-most​ ​five​ ​judges​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Court.​ ​​ ​The

nullification​ ​of​ ​the​ ​November​ ​9​ ​order​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​Court​ ​No.2​ ​was​ ​only implied​ ​in​ ​the​ ​November​ ​10​ ​order​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​bench,​ ​he​ ​suggested.

 “You​ ​are​ ​aggravating​ ​the​ ​situation”,​ ​Justice​ ​Misra​ ​told​ ​Prashant​ ​Bhushan.  Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petition​ ​does​ ​not​ ​make​ ​any​ ​allegation against​ ​the​ ​CJI.​ ​​ ​“All​ ​that​ ​the​ ​petition​ ​says​ ​is​ ​that​ ​it​ ​may​ ​eventually​ ​involve the​ ​CJI.​ ​​ ​We​ ​hope​ ​and​ ​believe​ ​the​ ​CJI​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​involved”,​ ​he​ ​said.

 Referring​ ​to​ ​the​ ​averment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​senior​ ​counsel,​ ​Prashant​ ​Bhushan​ ​said that​ ​the​ ​FIR​ ​casts​ ​a​ ​cloud,​ ​and​ ​since​ ​the​ ​allegation​ ​pertains​ ​to​ ​​ ​a​ ​case heard​ ​by​ ​a​ ​bench​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CJI,​ ​propriety​ ​demanded​ ​that​ ​he​ ​should​ ​not​ ​take judicial​ ​or​ ​administrative​ ​decisions​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case.