Allegations of corruption in judiciary cannot amount to contempt: Bhushan tells SC

Allegation of corruption in judiciary per se cannot amount to contempt, so far as it would nullify the constitutional provisions and statutory procedures for impeachment of a judge on grounds of misbehaviour, advocate Prashant Bhushan has contended before the Supreme Court.

In response to the court’s decision to examine the 2009 contempt case against him, he said that corruption is not restricted to pecuniary gratification but extends to particular forms such as bribery, embezzlement, theft, fraud, extortion, abuse of discretion, favouritism, nepotism, clientelism and conduct creating or exploiting conflicting interests.

Bhushan has been held guilty of criminal contempt on August 14 for his two tweets related to the current CJI riding a high-end bike and shutting down courts, and the alleged role of the last four CJIs in the destruction of democracy. The court has fixed August 20 to consider the quantum of sentence against him.

The separate 2009 case, arising out of his interview to Tehelka magazine alleging corruption among former CJIs, has been fixed for consideration on Monday, August 17 by the court, which has rejected his regret for the statement.

On August 10, the court said, “Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to corruption would per se amount to contempt of court, the matter is required to be heard”.

In his written submissions, he said the factum of corruption in the judiciary has been stated in Parliamentary Committee reports. It has been commented upon by former judges of the Supreme Court as well. Moreover, various judgments of this Court and High Courts and courts in foreign jurisdictions and constitutional experts have commented upon it.

"Allegations of corruption and their investigation become essential in impeachment proceedings under the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act. Therefore the allegation per se cannot be contempt," he said.

Bhushan further pointed out such charges cannot be per se contempt because the truth is a defense to contempt proceedings.

"Given that the defense or justification of truth is a statutory right, approved by the Supreme Court, and made available to an alleged contemnor, the court cannot hold the alleged contemnor guilty of contempt ‘per se’ in case the contemnor invokes the said defense or truth," he said.