On August 30, the Supreme Court of India closed the 2009 contempt of court case against advocate Prashant Bhushan and Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal as the duo had tendered an apology/explanation to the court. Notably, in 2020, the court refused to accept the explanation and apology tendered by advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The three-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Surya Kant and Justice MM Sundresh took the apology and explanation on record while closing the case. In its order, the court said, “In view of the apologies made by the contemnors, we don’t deem it necessary to continue the matter.”
The court order came after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Bhushan, said, “My only submission is in light of the apology made, is pursuing this necessary? (It will be) entering muddied the waters.”
The case against Prashant Bhushan
In 2009, Bhushan gave an interview to Tehelka magazine in which he alleged that out of sixteen Chief Justices of India, by that time, eight were corrupt. Following his statements, a suo-moto contempt case was initiated against Bhushan following the complaint filed by Senior Advocate Harish Salve. In his complaint, Salve had said that Bhushan did not have any proof for the statement he made. Notably, Prashant Bhushan’s father, Senior Counsel Shanti Bhushan then submitted an alleged list of corrupt CJIs in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court.
In 2012, the case went dormant. However, it was revived in 2020 when the bench led by Justice Arun Mishra decided to hear the matter along with the case filed against Bhushan over some allegedly derogatory tweets.
During the hearing, Prashant Bhushan said, “In my interview with Tehelka in 2009, I have used the word corruption in a wide sense, meaning lack of propriety. I did not mean only financial corruption or deriving any pecuniary advantage. If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same. I unreservedly state that I support the institution of the judiciary and especially the Supreme Court, of which I am a part, and I had no intention to lower the prestige of the judiciary in which I have complete faith. I regret if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that is, lower the reputation of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which could never have been my intention at all.”
The case could not be heard following Justice Mishra’s retirement, and it was finally listed for August 30.
