Contempt Of Court- Justice UU Lalit Offers To Recuse In Plea By Adv Prashant Bhushan Seeking Intra-Court Appeal In Supreme Court
Citing his involvement as amicus in one of the cases before his elevation to the bench, Supreme Court Judge Justice UU Lalit on Friday offered to recuse from hearing writ petition preferred by Adv Prashant Bhushan seeking consideration of his plea for intra court appeal before adjudication of review petitions in Contempt of Court matter. The writ petition which had stated that the right...
Citing his involvement as amicus in one of the cases before his elevation to the bench, Supreme Court Judge Justice UU Lalit on Friday offered to recuse from hearing writ petition preferred by Adv Prashant Bhushan seeking consideration of his plea for intra court appeal before adjudication of review petitions in Contempt of Court matter.
The writ petition which had stated that the right of appeal is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and is also guaranteed under international law and this would act as a "vital safeguard against wrongful conviction and would truly enable the provision of truth as a defence" was listed before the bench of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat and PS Narasimha.
On August 14, 2020 the Supreme Court held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court in the suo moto contempt case taken against him over two of his tweets about the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court.
What Transpired In The Top Court Today?
When the matter was called for hearing, citing his involvement as amicus in the Tehelka matter, Justice Lalit said, "I think it was Harish Salve as amicus curiae in the Tehelka matter. I was also the amicus in the same matter for almost 16 years. So therefore whatever decision the lead amicus had taken in, Mr Salve in moving that application for contempt, as a part of the team I will also be bound by that. What you're now placing is two contempt petitions, one which is still pending and one where he has been sentenced by the last judgment passed by Justice Arun Mishra's bench. Now what you're saying is that there be right of appeal and it will definitely be where I was involved in the matter so therefore, should I go ahead with the matter or should I not go ahead with the matter."
Responding to the offer made by the judge, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan urged Justice Lalit to go ahead with the matter.
"Your lordships should go ahead with the matter. That was an entirely different case because your lordship has been party to so many cases as a lawyer," submitted Senior Counsel.
"Here if you see your writ, it makes a reference to the Tehelka contempt. We have no difficulty," responded Justice Lalit.
Explaining his difficulty, the judge further said, "There was a write up in Tehelka which said certain things and one of the things which was said was against the then Chief Justice Kapadia and the reference was to a matter which was a matter where I was amicus. In that matter, I was leading the arguments because Mr Salve was in difficulty and therefore I was incharge of the matter and after the write up in Tehelka in actual situation of circumstances how the matter evolved in Court and what were the responses, I wrote a response to the editor. The editor published the same response in the next edition. It is not as if I am a passive observer," Justice Lalit said.
"It's not that your lordships was concerned with the specific issue," replied Senior Counsel.
Justice Lalit at this juncture asked Senior Counsel to file an affidavit explaining the entire situation wherein though Justice Lalit had appeared as an amicus but the petitioner has no objection and only then he would proceed with the same.
"Just file the affidavit and it would become part of the record," the judge said while Senior Counsel offered to record his submissions.
Accordingly the bench adjourned the matter for May 17, 2022 while asking the counsel to explain the position with regards to the relief sought in England.
Details Of The Plea
Bhushan has averred in his application, filed through advocate Kamini Jaiswal that prayers made in the petition challenging his conviction, have "a direct bearing" on the review petitions filed by him.
Further, Bhushan stated that a larger question in the instant plea which arises is that there exists a need for important procedural safeguards when this Hon'ble Court considers cases of criminal contempt in original proceedings, i.e. those proceedings where this Hon'ble Court does not act as an appellate Court.
The petition stated that the right of appeal is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and is also guaranteed under international law and this would act as a "vital safeguard against wrongful conviction and would truly enable the provision of truth as a defense".
In his September 14 review petition, Mr. Bhushan had cited various instances suggesting that Justice Mishra's presence on the Bench raises a reasonable apprehension on his part of getting a "fair and impartial hearing".
In this background, the petitioner had sought issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that a person convicted for criminal contempt by this Hon'ble Court, including the petitioner herein, would have a right to an intra-court appeal to be heard by a larger and different bench as well as framing rules and guidelines providing for intra-court appeal against conviction in original criminal contempt cases.
Case Title: Prashant Bhushan Versus Union Of India And Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 1053/2020 and connected petitions