By IANS,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Friday sought advocate Prashant Bhushan’s response to a plea seeking launch of contempt of court proceedings against him for allegedly accusing a sitting apex court judge S.H. Kapadia of judicial impropriety.
Prashant Bhushan, in a recent interview to Tehelka magazine, raised the issue of judicial corruption and also whether a judge having any stake in a business firm should hear and decide cases involving the firm.
A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan sought Prashant Bhushan’s response on a plea by senior counsel Harish Salve, who told the court that Bhushan, in an interview to the magazine, had accused Justice Kapadia of indulging in corruption.
The bench, headed by the chief justice also included Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Kapadia, who, however, disassociated himself from the bench’s decision for the sake of judicial propriety.
Incidentally, Justice Kapadia also disassociated himself from another case, involving a business firm Sterlite, which is a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, a multinational dealing in exploration and mining.
In his lawsuit, Salve, who has been appointed by the three-judge forest bench of the court to adjudicate issues related to forests and environment, also told the court that Prashant Bhushan, in his interview, went to the extent of saying that “out of the last 16 to 17 chief justices, half have been corrupt”.
Salve also told the court that in the interview, Prashant Bhushan, responding to a query on “other ways of judicial corruption”, said: “There are so many. There is justice Kapadia, who decided the Niyamgiri mining lease case in Orissa.”
“He said Vedanta cannot be given the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the Norwegian government, but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease as it is a public listed company. Justice Kapadia said it’s public listed because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in its favour,” said Salve in his application, quoting from the interview.
“There is law against judges hearing the case where there is conflict of interest, but they just bypass it and you cannot complain because that would be contempt,” said Salve citing Prashant Bhusan’s remarks.
In his lawsuit, Salve contended that more than raising the issue whether judges having stakes in business firms should hear cases involving them, Prashant Bhusan’s statement accused Justice Kapadia of indulging in corruption.
Salve said in hurling the allegations, he had resorted to half truths, concealing the fact that during the hearing, Justice Kapadia had disclosed that he had shares in Sterlite and proceeded to hear the case only after counsel from various sides reposed confidence in him.
“The statement by Prashant Bhushan severely erodes the public confidence in the judiciary and are contemptuous per se,” said Salve in his lawsuit, adding that the statements alleging corruption in respect of past chief justices “smacks of irresponsible maligning of the institution”.
He also noted that Prashant Bhushan had gone on to make the allegations while admitting in the same breath that he had no evidence to substantiate his allegations.