'Justice Arun Mishra's Bench Lacks Jurisdiction To Initiate Criminal Contempt' : Prashant Bhushan Seeks Recall Of Contempt Notices

Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan has filed applications seeking recall of the contempt notices issued against him on Februray 6 by the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra based on  the petitions filed by the Attorney General and Central Government.

Relying on the recent judgments of the SC upholding the powers of CJI as the master of roster, the applications state that the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha could not have taken cognizance of contempt. According to the roster arrangement, only the benches headed by CJI, Justice  Sikri and Justice Lalit have the jurisdiction for criminal contempt, the applications moved through Advocate Kamini Jaiswal  state. 

Bhushan points out that the contempt applications were mentioned before the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra by the AG on February 4, upon which the bench agreed to list it on February 6 alongwith the main writ petition. According of the applications, this procedure is contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Campaign For Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India, which held that listing of cases is the sole prerogative of the CJI. Overlooking the precedent in the CJAR case, in which Justice Arun Mishra was also a part, the bench allowed the mentioning of the listing of the contempt petitions, Bhushan argues

The further contention is that the applications were interlocutory applications in a pending writ petition, which concerned the legality of the appointment of Nageswar Rao as appointment of CBI interim chief. As per Rules of Practise and Procedure of Supreme Court, criminal contempt petition has to be registered separately and cannot be filed as an Interlocutory Applicaiton.

"the entire manner and method by which the contempt petition was filed reflects that the objective seems to be other than seeking justice, if any. The contempt petition and the manner in which it was filed were not just illegal and unauthorised but wholly contrary to settled rules and settled law", the applications read.

The contempt controversy relates to a tweet made by Bhushan suggesting that the AG had misled the court by submitting that the appointment of M Nageswar Rao as the interim director of CBI was with the approval of the High Powered Committee. Bhushan's comment in the microblogging platform was apparently based on his conversation with leader of opposition, Mallikarjun Kharge, who was part of the committee.

Taking umbrage at this tweet, the AG filed an interim application to initiate contempt action against Bhushan, alleging that his comments amounted to casting aspersions on the integrity and honesty of the AG.  Later, the centre too moved another petition, saying "such an act by a counsel of making false and irresponsible allegations on a public platform, rather than raising his grievances, if any, before this Hon'ble Court, is grossly contumacious and warrants punishment by this Court".

Bhushan affirms that he has alway held the court in highest esteem ,and that his occasional criticism of the institution was never with the object of scandalising the court.

Read Applications