- 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
Prashant Bhushan 2009 contempt case: SC impleads Attorney General KK Venugopal
The Supreme Court has directed that the case records in relation to the 2009 contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan be sent to Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal. The case pertains to his interview to the Tehelka magazine in which he had alleged that half of the last 16 Chief Justices were corrupt.The case was taken up by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has directed that the case records in relation to the 2009 contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan be sent to Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal. The case pertains to his interview to the Tehelka magazine in which he had alleged that half of the last 16 Chief Justices were corrupt.
The case was taken up by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna today.
During today’s hearing, Justice Khanwilkar asked Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan representing Prashant Bhushan if someone was appearing as amicus in the matter to which the Court was informed that AG Venugopal had stated during an earlier hearing that he would like to assist the Court, and thus should be impleaded as an amicus curiae.
The Court said that AG Venugopal would be impleaded in the case as per Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Dhavan also submitted that there are more questions of law to be framed in the case, as the Court had earlier stated that it would add to the list of 10 questions submitted by Bhushan.
The Bench directed for notice to be served upon the AG. The matter will now taken up during the week commencing from October 12.
The 11-year old suo moto contempt case had been taken on the basis of a complaint made by Senior Advocate Harish Salve.