SC refuses to entertain Prashant Bhushan’s PIL alleging abuse of office by Justice C.K. Prasad; says the aggrieved can file review or curative petition

The Supreme Court has dismissed the PIL filed by advocate and activist Prashant Bhushan, seeking registration of FIR against Justice C.K. Prasad (former Judge of Supreme Court and presently Chairperson of Press Council) alleging abuse of office and criminal misconduct. He has also sought his removal as the Chairperson of Press Council of India.

Dismissing the Petition, the Bench, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice P.C. Pant observed, “In our considered opinion, the person, who is aggrieved by any kind of order passed by respondent no.4 in the discharge of his judicial duty while functioning as a Judge of this Court in dealing with a matter on the judicial side, can file an application for review or take recourse to the curative petition or any other remedy available to him in law. But the petitioner cannot be allowed to make such a prayer invoking the conceptual facet of Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”

During the arguments in the Court, Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, representing his son also cited the letter written by SCBA President Dushyant Dave. The Bench however, remained adamant and reportedly observed, “If we entertain this petition, it will open a dangerous door in our democracy. We are not inclined to entertain this petition.”

Mr. Bhushan had earlier made complaints to the CBI and the CVC against the alleged abuse of office and misconduct. He alleges that the non-registration of FIR is in violation of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case, which had established that registration of FIR/RC is mandatory once information regarding commission of cognizable offence is received by the law enforcement agency.

The Writ Petition reiterates the allegations which Mr. Bhushan had earlier levied against Justice Prasad in his letter to the CVC and the CBI. He alleges that Justice Prasad had abused his position as a Judge, by tagging two unrelated cases and passing an order in favor of one of the parties. Read a detailed account of the allegations here.

You may access LiveLaw’s coverage of the entire issue here.

Read the Order here.