Not satisfied with the explanation given by advocate Prashant Bhushan for allegedly casting aspersions on Chief Justice S H Kapadia, the Supreme Court on Thursday proceeded with the contempt proceeding against him.
The court, which had in its last hearing asked the advocate to apologise for dropping the proceedings against him, went ahead with it as Bhushan refused to do so saying he did not owe any further explanation as his remarks on CJI was misconstrued by some people as imputation of financial corruption.
"On the issue of maintainability, we have held it against you. So you can go ahead on merit," a bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir said.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani appearing for the advocate submitted that the proceeding, if allowed, would open Pandora's box.
"Everyone knows what is happening," he said adding, "For the last two years, people know what is happening in the apex court but no one dared to speak."
"People would suffer for talking truth but now millions of people are ready to go behind the bars on the contempt petition," he said.
The bench, however, refused to drop the proceedings and said, "If you want to open the Pandora's box then open it."
Bhushan is facing contempt proceedings for his interview to Tehelka magazine in which he made the insinuations against Justice Kapadia in 2009 as well as some other judges and previous CJIs.
He had said Justice Kapadia, being a member of the Forest Bench along with then Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, should not have heard the matter relating to Vedanta Sterlite Group as he held shares of the company.
Jethmalani said, "I don't advise my client (Bhushan) to say an apology to the court."
Jethmalani also criticised the Supreme Court for the way in which it dealt with the Bhopal gas tragedy case.
"A suit of 3.3 billion was filed in the Bhopal gas tragedy case but the matter was settled at one seventh of the amount and all the criminal proceedings were diluted. Three judges were there (who passed the order) including the CJI. How did this happen," he said.
The court, however, objected to his arguments saying it has nothing to do with this case and these were off-the-record statements.
However, Jethmalani continued with his arguments and said that settlement was done by the government authorities and amount was exchanged under the table.
"Settlement was done in a Paris hotel and Anderson was not arrested as it was feared that he would spill the beans," he said.
Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for Tehelka, also contented that the court should take steps to bring to public domain the rot in judiciary.
"Many advocates approached me with their story on their complaint against judges and coincidentally all those names have been pointed out by me in a documents placed before the court in a sealed envelope. The bench remarked that the rot in the judiciary is his perception and disagreed with his view. I have the highest regard for you," Justice Kabir said while not agreeing with his perception.
"So do I have for you but the public interest goes higher," Shanti Bhushan was quick to reply.
Meanwhile, 25 civil society activists led by Magsaysay awardee and RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal, pleaded before the court to hear their stand in the case but the court said their application would be considered at an appropriate time.
They opposed any action against Prashant Bhushan on the ground that it would deal a severe blow to the Fundamental Right of freedom of expression and speech granted by the Constitution.
Earlier, Jethmalani defended Bhushan saying "truth was a valid defence" and the judiciary cannot "brush under the carpet" allegations concerning it as it would otherwise "grow into a cancer" threatening the very edifice of the society.
The senior counsel submitted that Section 13(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act was Constitutionally invalid as it is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech.
"It can be saved from unconstitutionality by reading it down to mean that truth of what has been said or published or bona fide belief in the truth thereof is a complete defence to a charge of criminal contempt under the Act."
