English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC issues contempt notice to Prashant Bhushan on Attorney General Venugopal’s plea

Published

8 years ago

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court today (Wednesday, February 6), issued a notice to senior advocate Prashant Bhushan on a contempt of court petition filed by Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets that allegedly criticised the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

Bhushan, who accepted the notice in person, was directed to file his reply within three weeks.

The Centre moved the apex court yesterday, days after Venugopal’s contempt petition against Bhushan, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making false statement in a pending case. The Centre’s plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal’s petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea.

Bhushan, in a series of tweets, said that the Attorney General had misled the apex court last week on the process followed in the controversial appointment of Nageswara Rao as the interim CBI director.

During a hearing on a plea filed by NGO Common Cause, Venugopal had told the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Arun Mishra that the selection committee mandated to pick the CBI director had cleared Rao’s appointment as interim head of the agency, first when CBI director Alok Verma was divested of his responsibilities on October 23 and then again when he was summarily dismissed by the panel on January 10.

Bhushan had claimed that Venugopal had misled the court, saying that he had spoken to Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge and learnt that the selection committee had not discussed the appointment of Rao as interim CBI director.

Kharge is a member of the selection committee that also comprises Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.

Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, “I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr. Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting.”

The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the high-powered committee.

Rao’s stint as interim CBI director ended on February 2 after the selection committee, by a 2:1 majority decision, appointed former Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police, Rishi Kumar Shukla as the new full-time director of the agency. With Shukla having taken over charge of the investigation agency, the petition challenging Rao’s appointment has become inconsequential.

On Wednesday, as the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha resumed hearing arguments in the petition challenging Rao’s appointment, the issue of whether Bhushan can be held in contempt for his tweets took precedence.

Curiously, Venugopal insisted that he did not favour the court giving out any punishment to Bhushan on account of possible contempt and that he would, instead, prefer “authoritative words” from the court on the issues red flagged by him. However, Venugopal’s immediate junior in the government’s team of law officers, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, implored the bench to penalise Bhushan.

Venugopal informed the bench that the selection committee had discussed the issue of Rao’s appointment as interim CBI director and that even Kharge had signed on the panel’s decision. Justice Mishra wondered how Bhushan posted the tweets about a matter that was sub judice. The Attorney General then contended that Bhushan’s action could be seen as “contempt by speech” since the comments “lower the authority of the court” and “intervene with the working of the court”.

As Justice Mishra lamented the “unwelcome practice” of lawyers routinely making statements on pending matters, the Attorney General pointed out that even as the case was proceeding, “12 cameramen are waiting for lawyers outside” to get their comments. Venugopal then urged the petitioner (Bhushan) to desist from discussing sub judice matters in public and added that while it is presumed that comments made in public and in the media do not affect the opinion of a judge, this may not always happen.

Justice Mishra said that the Bar should not display a sycophancy towards the Bench and added that lawyers like the Attorney General and senior advocate Fali Nariman had made the Bar “worthy and admirable”. Justice Mishra then proceeded to say that the extant case (the contempt petition) involves larger issues and that the bench would want to “settle the law” on them. Justice Sinha concurred with Justice Mishra and added that “time has come to realise that with freedom comes responsibility”.

Venugopal then insisted that while does want the law on contempt settled in the present case, he is not pressing for any punishment to be meted out for anyone.

Solicitor General Mehta, disagreeing with the Attorney General, told the bench: “I can cite 10 instances where a judgment is passed by the highest court and some lawyers say it is a black day for the judiciary.”

Mehta, on behalf of the Centre, proceeded to say that the bench should award a “deterrent punishment” to Bhushan as “the respondent has been involved in several such instances.” He added that the “Lordships’ magnanimity should not be taken as a form of weakness” and urged the bench to issue a notice to Bhushan.

Responding to the Solicitor General’s request, Justice Mishra said: “Punishment shouldn’t come for lawyers usually. Contempt is like a brahmashtra. It should be used sparingly so that it doesn’t lose its value. We are mindful of how reckless comments deprive dignity of others without a due process of law… the larger issue here is that media trial decides the reputation of a person who, ultimately, may win in court but has been widely criticized in public (sic). There is no repairing mechanism for that reputation”.

The bench then issued a notice to Bhushan, which he accepted in open court. While Bhushan has to reply to the contempt notice within three weeks, the contempt plea has been posted for its next hearing on March 7.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Centre sends 3 letters to Punjab government after anti-drug activist’s killing

The Centre has sought reports from the Punjab government on three incidents linked to allegations surrounding drug-related activities, including the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota.

Published

7 hours ago

on

October 16, 2026

By

Amit Shah

The Union government has sought detailed explanations from the Punjab government regarding three incidents linked to concerns over drug-related activities in the state. The move follows the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota in Mansa and comes amid renewed scrutiny of the state’s drug problem and law-and-order situation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent three letters to the Punjab chief secretary on October 16, with copies to the state’s director general of police. The communications sought information about Jhota’s killing, the fatal attack on Bikramjit Singh in Gurdaspur district, and the reported suicide of Gulzar Singh in September.

What the Centre’s three letters cover

The first letter concerned the October 13 killing of Parvinder Singh, popularly known as Jhota, who was known for raising concerns about drug abuse and alleged illegal sales of intoxicating substances in Punjab.

The ministry sought a comprehensive factual report on the incident and details of the steps taken by the state government following his death. It also asked about action taken on the Union government’s Vision Document on Narcotics Control for 2026–2029.

The document outlines measures to strengthen anti-narcotics enforcement, including dedicated anti-narcotics task forces, financial investigations, prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and action against transnational drug networks.

The second letter concerned the attack in Mari Panwan village in Gurdaspur district, in which Bikramjit Singh died and Nishan Singh and Gurmukh Singh were critically injured.

According to accounts cited in the report, the three men had objected to alleged drug peddling in their village before being attacked with sharp-edged weapons. However, police have denied that the incident was motivated by drug-related disputes and said an investigation was underway. Bikramjit’s relatives have also disputed the police account that the murder followed a dispute over a mobile phone.

The third letter sought details about Gulzar Singh’s death on September 8. The ministry referred to reports that he had raised concerns about the availability of synthetic drugs and had faced pressure and harassment from the local village panchayat. These allegations form part of the circumstances the Centre has asked the state government to examine and report on.

Amit Shah raises questions over Punjab’s law and order

Union Home Minister Amit Shah also raised concerns about the situation in Punjab, referring to the challenges posed by drugs, gangsterism and organised crime.

Questioning the Bhagwant Mann-led government over public safety, Shah called for action against the drug trade, protection for young people and strict measures against criminals.

The Centre’s requests place the three incidents under scrutiny, although the alleged links between the attacks or deaths and opposition to drug-related activities remain subject to the specific circumstances and investigations in each case.

Continue Reading

India News

Mallikarjun Kharge seeks all-party meeting with PM Modi on delimitation

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the fourth time, seeking an all-party meeting on delimitation. He also flagged the 64-day delay in proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session.

Published

8 hours ago

on

October 16, 2026

By

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has renewed his demand for an all-party meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the government’s proposed delimitation exercise, arguing that political parties must have adequate time to examine the proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

In a letter to the prime minister on Friday, October 16, Kharge also raised concerns over what he described as an unprecedented delay in formally proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session. He said 64 days had passed since the session was adjourned sine die on August 13, while both Houses were yet to be prorogued.

Kharge seeks wider consultations on delimitation

Kharge said he had first written to Modi on April 11, requesting an all-party meeting before the government introduced a constitutional amendment bill concerning delimitation.

According to the Congress president, the government did not convene the requested meeting before making the bills public late on April 14 and calling a special session of Parliament on April 16.

The constitutional amendment bill on delimitation subsequently failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha on April 17.

Kharge said he had again written to the prime minister on July 16 and August 27, reiterating his demand for consultations. In his latest letter, he made the request for the fourth time, asking the government to discuss its revised proposals with political parties before finalising them for parliamentary consideration.

The Congress chief stressed that political parties should receive sufficient time to discuss the proposals among themselves and with other stakeholders.

He also cautioned the government against attempting to push through another far-reaching constitutional amendment without adequate deliberation.

Congress raises concern over Parliament session

Apart from delimitation, Kharge highlighted the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session, which was adjourned sine die on August 13.

He described the 64-day gap as unprecedented and linked the issue to concerns about possible government plans to bring fresh delimitation proposals before Parliament.

Prorogation formally ends a parliamentary session. Kharge’s letter raised the issue while urging the government to ensure wider political consultation before proceeding with any new legislative proposals.

Jairam Ramesh shares Kharge’s letter

Congress general secretary for communications Jairam Ramesh also drew attention to the letter by sharing it on X.

Ramesh said Kharge had written to Modi about the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session and the possibility of further government moves on delimitation.

The Congress’s latest demand centres on securing time for political parties to examine the government’s proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Abhijeet Dipke detained ahead of CJP’s national flag march in Delhi

Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on October 16, 2026, shortly before a planned national flag march. The proposed rally followed the judicial custody of two CJP members who had waved the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar.

Published

9 hours ago

on

October 16, 2026

By

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on Friday, October 16, shortly before he was due to participate in a planned national flag march in the capital.

According to the report, police personnel reached Dipke’s residence and detained him just minutes before the proposed ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ rally. The march was planned in Delhi amid tensions over restrictions on demonstrations and the detention of CJP members.

The latest detention marks the second time Dipke has been detained within a week. He was previously detained after arriving at Delhi’s airport from Mumbai for a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of manipulation during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Why was the national flag march planned?

One of the main triggers for the planned march was the judicial custody of two CJP members, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.

The two were sent to five-day judicial custody after entering Jantar Mantar while waving the national flag on October 13. The incident occurred a day after the historic protest site was denotified as a protest location, according to the report.

The proposed march was called ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’. CJP planned the rally amid its continuing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.

The allegations concerning voter-list manipulation remain allegations and should not be presented as established findings.

Police had issued a notice before the detention

Before detaining Dipke, Delhi Police personnel visited his residence and served him a notice advising him against holding the proposed march.

The notice was issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), according to the report. It stated that prohibitory orders were in force in the Connaught Place area.

The notice also cited the absence of permission from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) for the proposed Tiranga Yatra. It warned that proceeding with the march despite the restrictions would be considered a violation of the law.

The detention came amid heightened attention to the proposed gathering in central Delhi and the dispute over whether the planned march could proceed under the prevailing restrictions.

A second detention in a week

Dipke’s latest detention followed his earlier detention at Delhi airport after he arrived from Mumbai for a planned protest over the SIR exercise and allegations concerning voter-list manipulation.

The latest episode adds to the ongoing confrontation between CJP and the authorities over its proposed demonstrations. The immediate context for the October 16 march was the judicial custody of two party members following their appearance at Jantar Mantar with the national flag.

The report does not establish that the allegations of electoral manipulation are proven, nor does it provide a final judicial determination of the dispute surrounding the planned march.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com