SC will study whether a procedure is necessary for complaints against judges | India News
A court of judges Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari had said in their August 10 order: “Before reaching any conclusion as to whether (Bhushan’s) statement made on ‘corruption’ would per se amount to contempt of court, the matter is required to be heard ”.
On Monday, the court said a critically important question had arisen as to whether there should be a procedure for members of the bar association (defenders) to file a complaint against a sitting judge before making the charges public.
During the hearing of the case, appearing on behalf of Bhushan, lead lawyer Rajeev Dhavan told the court that he would file a petition for a review of the sentence convicting the activist-defender in contempt of court for two “false and malicious” tweets that they scandalized the high court.
The court referred to the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in the C Ravichandran Iyer case, in which the court had ruled that if members of the college had any material on “misconduct” or “misconduct” of a judge, they should meet with the president of the corresponding superior court. or the Chief Justice of India to brief them on the material against the judge. The higher court had said that they should wait a reasonable period of time to allow the administrative head of the HC or SC to take appropriate action.
Reference was also made to the 1992 ruling of a five-judge SC court headed by Judge JS Verma in the S Ramaswami case, where he had said that the question of whether the charges against a sitting judge warranted an investigation should be decided by Parliament on the admission of a judge. motion to remove the judge presented by the required number of deputies. However, he had said that during the investigation, the practicing judge should have full rights of defense.
But in neither of these two cases did the higher court have an opportunity to examine whether a defender could go ahead and make accusations against a sitting judge without first presenting the evidence supporting the charges to the Chief Justice of the HC or the CJI. .
The bench will hear arguments on August 24.
Dhavan said he and Bhushan had formulated five grounds for review, pointing to the “dichotomy” in the Aug. 14 ruling that convicted him in contempt. The bank is scheduled to hear arguments on August 20 on the amount of sentence for Bhushan.
Proceeding with the 2009 contempt case against Bhushan, the court told Dhavan and Kapil Sibal that several questions arose in these contempt proceedings that needed to be addressed, including whether to provide a procedure for filing complaints or indictments with evidence against a acting judge.
Dhavan said that Ravichandran Iyer’s judgment established an incorrect principle, but Sibal, who appeared for Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal, in the contempt case, asked the court to close the contempt case and then proceed to adjudicate the related issues. with contempt of court and the procedure for making a complaint against a sitting judge.
In order to be a party to the contempt proceedings against her son, lead attorney Shanti Bhushan asked the court to postpone the hearing for two weeks for a physical hearing in public hearing on the matter. A combative Dhavan said: “Sibal is my guru and Shanti Bhushan is the superguru of us all. I cannot contradict your request. That the proceedings be postponed. ”