English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

7 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

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

India News

IPL 2026 Qualifier 1: Rajat Patidar, Virat Kohli shatter playoff records as RCB crush GT to reach final

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru advanced to their second consecutive IPL final after a historic 92-run demolition of Gujarat Titans in Qualifier 1, powered by Rajat Patidar’s breathtaking 93*

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) created history in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 Qualifier 1 against Gujarat Titans (GT), sealing their spot in a second consecutive final with a clinical 92-run victory on Tuesday.

Riding on captain Rajat Patidar’s blistering, unbeaten 93 off just 33 balls, Bengaluru piled up a colossal 254 for 5 in their 20 overs after being asked to bat first at the scenic Dharamsala stadium. The monumental total surpassed the previous playoff benchmark of 233 for 3, set by GT against Mumbai Indians in 2023, making it the highest-ever score in IPL playoff history. In response, a ruthless RCB bowling assault dismantled the Gujarat Titans batting line-up, bowling them out for 162 in 19.3 overs.

Patidar blitzkrieg anchors historic RCB innings

After GT skipper Shubman Gill won the toss and opted to field, RCB’s top order asserted early dominance by racing to 76 for 1 within the powerplay. Venkatesh Iyer provided a quickfire 19 off seven balls, while Devdutt Padikkal struck 30 off 19 deliveries to set a brisk tempo.

The foundation allowed Virat Kohli to maintain the middle-order momentum with a fluent 43 off 25 balls. With this knock, Kohli carved out another historic milestone, becoming the first player in IPL history to accumulate over 600 runs in four consecutive seasons. Jason Holder briefly checked RCB’s charge by removing both Kohli and Padikkal in the 10th over to leave them at 99 for 3.

However, skipper Rajat Patidar took complete control from there on. Surviving two dropped catches early on, Patidar launched a brutal counter-attack, smashing five fours and nine towering sixes at an astonishing strike rate of 281.81. He combined forces with Krunal Pandya, who played a crucial anchoring role with 43 off 28 balls, putting together a blistering 90-run partnership. Patidar turned particularly merciless in the death overs, hammering a massive over from Kulwant Khejroliya as RCB finished their death overs on an absolute high.

Gujarat Titans collapse under scoreboard pressure

Faced with a steep mountain to climb, the Gujarat Titans chase imploded right from the start, losing five wickets inside the powerplay against a lethal pace battery. Openers Sai Sudharsan and skipper Shubman Gill were dismissed in the third and fourth overs respectively.

Sudharsan, the tournament’s leading run-scorer, suffered a bizarre and unfortunate dismissal when his bat slipped during a cut shot, knocking back his own stumps to be out hit-wicket off Jacob Duffy. Gill followed shortly after, cleaned up by an excellent delivery from Bhuvneshwar Kumar.

Jos Buttler offered a brief, aggressive resistance by hitting four boundaries and two sixes in a quick 29, but Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood exacted quick revenge by clean-bowling him in the fifth over. From a precarious position, the Titans slipped further as Jacob Duffy tore through the middle order, dismissing Washington Sundar and Rashid Khan.

Rahul Tewatia was the lone warrior for the Titans, waging a solitary battle to smash a fighting 68. His aggressive hitting brought up the team’s hundred in the 13th over and dragged the side past the 150-mark. However, the target proved far too distant. Krunal Pandya claimed the final wicket in the final over, dismissing GT’s tailender Mohammed Siraj—who was caught by Tim David—to bundle out GT for 162, securing the second-largest victory margin in IPL playoff history for RCB.

While RCB marches straight into the grand finale with ultimate momentum, Gujarat Titans remain alive in the tournament. They will get another opportunity to reach the final when they play the winner of the Eliminator clash between Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals in Qualifier 2.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com