- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Attorney General urges the SC to take a compassionate view in Prashant Bhushan case; Court gives him 30 minutes to withdraw ‘contemptuous’ tweets
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari had asked Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal to guide the Court in the contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan to which the AG responded saying that there have been instances in the past where former Judges have made serious statements about the Supreme Court having failed at democracy and about the corruption...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari had asked Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal to guide the Court in the contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan to which the AG responded saying that there have been instances in the past where former Judges have made serious statements about the Supreme Court having failed at democracy and about the corruption in judiciary. The AG further said that the intention is to seek improvement in the administration of justice. He added that Prashant Bhushan should be forgiven or warned and that there was no need of punishing him.
Justice Mishra told the AG that they expcted a better reply from the AG and asked as to what can be done as Prashant Bhushan feels that he has done no wrong.
The AG said that the Court should take a “compassionate view” which would be appreciated by the Bar and would befit the status of the Court. He also informed the Court that Bhushan had filed several PILs for the benefit of the public which should be considered and also suggested the Court to take Bhushan’s remarks off the record and close the case.
Justice Mishra asked the AG as to Bhushan’s remarks be taken off the record when he himself said that those remarks were his bonafide belief. Justice Gavai also said that Bhushan was given 3 days to tender an apology, but instead of apologising, he filed a Supplementary Statement.
Justice Mishra welcomed the AG’s advice but remarked that Bhushan should withdraw his allegations. The AG also concurred with Justice Mishra.
The Court granted 30 minutes to Prashant Bhushan to think over the matter and withdraw his tweets and come back with submissions.