Trending 'Bing Bong': POTUS joins Jonas Brothers in viral Insta reel.Entertainment Anushka Sharma requests privacy for daughter Vamika: ‘Want her to live her life freely’.Entertainment Vicky Kaushal, Katrina Kaif shift to their Juhu house, Sham Kaushal attends puja ceremony.Government invites leaders of 5 parties for talks, Opposition cries foul.Cities 2 killings in 2 days: In poll season, silence and disquiet over lynchings.Venugopal also told the court that while Bhushan may be warned, he should not be awarded a punishment. The court once again heard arguments by Bhushan’s lawyer and Attorney General for India K K Venugopal on why the court must not award any punishment to Bhushan and concluded the hearing. On August 24, he filed another affidavit, reiterating his stand and informing the court that tendering an insincere apology would in fact constitute contempt of court. This extension was despite Bhushan’s stand that he had not tweeted in a “fit of absent-mindedness” but had expressed what he termed a “bonafide belief” he held on the state of the judiciary.
On August 20, during the sentencing hearing, the Supreme Court gave Bhushan more time to “think over” and tender an apology to the court. Generally, a separate hearing for sentencing follows conviction, with the court hearing arguments again to decide the quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court has already held Bhushan guilty of “serious contempt of court” for his two tweets. Click here to join our channel stay updated with the latest What about the other case? In Bhushan’s case, the case will be listed before another Bench on September 10. The CJI, as the master of the roster, decides which Bench would hear the case. Once the questions to be settled are identified, these are placed before the CJI who will then assign it to a larger Bench. When different rulings of same Bench strength are not consistent with one another, a ruling by a larger Bench of an odd number of judges is preferred to harmonise the law. A bench of at least five judges is set up to hear significant Constitution cases. How is a reference to a larger Bench made?Īs per Article 145(3) of the Constitution, “the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution” shall be five.
#Prasanth extension outdoor badminton court free
In a 1995 ruling, Ravichandran Iyer v Justice A M Bhattacharjee, the Supreme Court had said that lawyers must inform the Chief Justice of that court about allegations against any judge, with prima facie evidence, so that the CJ can look into the matter.īhushan asked if this procedure is compatible with the “reasonable restrictions” imposed on free speech by the Constitution.Īlso read | Contempt case: What Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan and AG Venugopal saidĪlthough the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act recognises truth as a defence in cases, one of the questions that Bhushan has raised is whether the contemnor has to prove the allegation or remark on corruption. The most crucial of these questions is whether expressing “bonafide opinion about the extent of corruption in any section of the judiciary” would amount to contempt of court.īhushan also pointed out several conflicting rulings on the subjects of contempt of court, and bar against speaking in the public domain about complaints against a judge, and sought reference to a larger Bench to settle the law on these issues. On August 24, through his lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, he submitted a list of 10 questions that needed to be addressed by a Constitution Bench. The court has now reserved its verdict on the quantum of punishment, if any, to be imposed on Bhushan.Īlso read | Prashant Bhushan writes: Open criticism of any institution is necessary to safeguard the constitutional order What are the “larger” questions in the 2009 case?īhushan has argued that the 2009 case would involve questions that required interpretation of the Constitution and hence it must be referred to a larger Bench. In this case, Bhushan has refused to apologise and has stood his ground that the tweets reflected his “bonafide beliefs”, even as the Supreme Court gave him time to rethink and tender an unconditional apology or withdraw his statement. On August 14, the Supreme Court found the two tweets amounting to “serious contempt of court”. The fresh case involves two tweets by Bhushan about the Supreme Court’s functioning and the Chief Justice of India.
0 kommentar(er)
