<p>The very legality of the joint panel mechanism was also questioned before the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation (PIL) petition. <br /><br />Expelled Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh filed a first information report (FIR) against co-chairman of the joint panel Shanti Bhushan and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan on Monday, alleging that the father-son duo was distributing a controversial CD which purportedly contains conversation involving the three of them and Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav. <br /><br />In the FIR, Amar Singh has alleged that the CD had been tampered/morphed and edited with a view to malign him. The CD had surfaced last week, just ahead of the panel’s first meeting here on Saturday, and the conversation therein sought to make out a case that there was an attempt to fix a Supreme Court judge for a favourable judgment in one of the cases. <br /><br />The PIL challenged the very government notification of April 8 that set up the joint committee. Filed by one advocate M L Sharma and other like-minded persons, the PIL contended that the notification was “unconstitutional” and prayed before the apex court to quash the same on the ground that Shanti Bhushan, his son Prashant and three other members of the joint committee were not members of Parliament.<br /><br />The PIL referred to Article 53 of the Constitution to contend that the notification for setting up of the committee can be issued by only the President and not by the Law Ministry. “There are two types of bills -government and private members Bill. The impugned notification does not reflect this position. <br /><br />If it’s a government bill, then it will be drafted by the Committee, comprising members of either House, to be appointed by the Speaker,” the petition said. <br /><br />The petition also raised a string of charges against Shanti Bhushan and son Prashant Bhushan, accusing them of professional misconduct and sought a direction from the court to direct a CBI inquiry against them.<br /><br />On his part, Shanti Bhushan approached the SC on Monday with a contempt petition against Amar Singh and requested the court to set up a probe team. Shanti’s petition referred to two forensic examination reports, including one from Truth Lab, Hyderabad, to claim that the CD was “totally fabricated”. It also claimed that some parts of the conversation were lifted from a CD already filed and submitted in the SC in 2006 and was part of the court record in the Amar Singh Tapes case.<br /><br />Seeking suo motu contempt action against Amar Singh and SIT formation, the petition alleged that the CD was an attempt to “embarrass” one of the Judges in a Bench that had reserved its verdict in the petitions relating to Amar Singh tapes and cancellation of 2G licences.</p>
<p>The very legality of the joint panel mechanism was also questioned before the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation (PIL) petition. <br /><br />Expelled Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh filed a first information report (FIR) against co-chairman of the joint panel Shanti Bhushan and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan on Monday, alleging that the father-son duo was distributing a controversial CD which purportedly contains conversation involving the three of them and Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav. <br /><br />In the FIR, Amar Singh has alleged that the CD had been tampered/morphed and edited with a view to malign him. The CD had surfaced last week, just ahead of the panel’s first meeting here on Saturday, and the conversation therein sought to make out a case that there was an attempt to fix a Supreme Court judge for a favourable judgment in one of the cases. <br /><br />The PIL challenged the very government notification of April 8 that set up the joint committee. Filed by one advocate M L Sharma and other like-minded persons, the PIL contended that the notification was “unconstitutional” and prayed before the apex court to quash the same on the ground that Shanti Bhushan, his son Prashant and three other members of the joint committee were not members of Parliament.<br /><br />The PIL referred to Article 53 of the Constitution to contend that the notification for setting up of the committee can be issued by only the President and not by the Law Ministry. “There are two types of bills -government and private members Bill. The impugned notification does not reflect this position. <br /><br />If it’s a government bill, then it will be drafted by the Committee, comprising members of either House, to be appointed by the Speaker,” the petition said. <br /><br />The petition also raised a string of charges against Shanti Bhushan and son Prashant Bhushan, accusing them of professional misconduct and sought a direction from the court to direct a CBI inquiry against them.<br /><br />On his part, Shanti Bhushan approached the SC on Monday with a contempt petition against Amar Singh and requested the court to set up a probe team. Shanti’s petition referred to two forensic examination reports, including one from Truth Lab, Hyderabad, to claim that the CD was “totally fabricated”. It also claimed that some parts of the conversation were lifted from a CD already filed and submitted in the SC in 2006 and was part of the court record in the Amar Singh Tapes case.<br /><br />Seeking suo motu contempt action against Amar Singh and SIT formation, the petition alleged that the CD was an attempt to “embarrass” one of the Judges in a Bench that had reserved its verdict in the petitions relating to Amar Singh tapes and cancellation of 2G licences.</p>
