[LIVE UPDATES] Prashant Bhushan-Tehelka 2009 Contempt Case

2. What is the process to be adopted for making such allegations with respect to sitting and retired judges?

Dr.Dhavan said matter needs to b referred to a larger bench.

We would like to hear on that aspect as well"

The bench adjourns the case to August 24.

States in the order :

"The questions framed by this court have certain ramifications

1. If statements as to corruption of judges can be made, in what circumstances it can be made.

Dhavan submits that the questions raised by the bench are very 'meaningful' .

Dhavan submits that these questions need to be examined by a larger bench.

Dhavan submits that the questions raised by the bench are very 'meaningful' .

Dhavan also submits that 'he certainly wants to give the matter a quietus'.

Justice Arun Misra says that the Court is keen to have a 'quietus' to the issue.

Justice Arun Mishra says that the cirucmstances of the allegations have to be looked into. Says there is a judgment by Justice J S Verma, which says corruption allegations against judges should not be made public at the first instance, and should be made to the Court for probe.

Advocate Shanti Bhushan submits that the matter should be heard only after the court starts physical functioning.

Advocate Shanti Bhushan submits that the matter should be heard only after the court starts physical functioning.

Corruption allegations per se cannot be contempt, submits Dhavan. He says that Justice Arun Mishra, while he was a judge of Calcutta HC, was part of a judgment which held that the corruption allegations made by Mamta Banerjee against judges did not amount to contempt per se.