Dave also refers to Justice lokur's statement in the reply. Cites statement by Justice Kurian Joseph as well.
These are statements regarding the press conference that was held in Jan 2018.
Dave highlights "invaluable contributions" and "untiring efforts" of Bhushan.
“People like Bhushan take up issues that many times the executive is not willing to do.
Sure many of his petitions are dismissed, rightly so, that's for you to decide, but I beseech you to look at this”
Dave-
100s of cases have been brought to court's notice by Mr Bhushan. Court has appreciated his work on so many occasions.
If he makes a mistake, will you initiate contempt proceedings against him?
His remarks are only for the betterment of court.
All his great work is forgotten? No my lord. Your lordships are much more large-hearted.
If Mr Bhushan was pro-establishment, you would have given him Padma vibushan for his work.
Dave : I'm entitled to challenge the administrative order.
Today everything can be challenged. Lordships cannot say it is not subject to judicial review, everything is subject to such review. Otherwise it'll be travesty of Justice
Dave- Petitioner files a plea in SC..Registry runs to CJI, CJI takes SMC. That respectfully cannot be the case.
Otherwise it'll open a Pandora's box. All defective petitions will be taken up. That cannot be
Refers again to Duda judgment (P N Duda v P Shiv Shankar) - " Court is acting at the behest of someone, and not of its own accord.
Your July 22 Order itself records that..that Maheshwari's Petition is defective as it does not have AG's consent".
Now Dave refers to other instances he pointed out previously..if those weren't contempt, this certainly isn't.
"Last part of Mr Bhushan's first tweet does not amount to obstruction of justice"
Dave- 100s of people tweeted the (bike) picture when it came out. (Refers to a few captions that accompanied those posts) Can lordships then hold everyone for contempt?
Dave : Is it contemptuous to say that some judgments of certain past CJIs do not meet with the approval of a person? I may say that judgment was wrong. This is not obstruction of justice. Anyway I'm talking of things of the past
Through more judgments, Dave stresses on Fairness and objectivity.
Judges don't need protection for themselves, their judgments speak for them. (Based on a 1964 observation)
Relying on a precedent- Judges, like Caesar's, wife must be above suspicion