No question of apology, says Shanti Bhushan

The former Union Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan, who had alleged that there was corruption in the judiciary on Wednesday, made it clear that neither he nor his son Prashant Bhushan — who face contempt charges — would tender an apology.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan told a Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H.L. Dattu: “The question of apology does not arise. I am prepared to go to jail. I am of the firm belief that there is lot of corruption in the judiciary. I am not going to seek apology.”




When Justice Kabir asked him the meaning of the expression, “I am,” Mr. Shanti Bhushan said, “I mean both of us [father and son].” When he insisted on the court taking up his application alleging corruption in the judiciary as an intervener, Justice Kabir said the court would hear him later.

Contempt petition
The Bench is hearing a contempt petition against advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan and the Managing Editor of Tehelka magazine, Tarun Tejpal, for publishing an interview alleging corruption in the judiciary.

Earlier when senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Mr. Tejpal, submitted that “there is no doubt” there is corruption in judiciary, Justice Kabir took strong exception and asked him not to make such sweeping statements. Justice Kabir said, “You can say there is a little corruption in judiciary.”

Again, when Mr. Dhavan referred to a statement, purported to have been made by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), S.P. Bharucha, that 20 per cent of the judges in the country were corrupt, Justice Kabir corrected him, saying “what the former CJI said was that 80 per cent of the judges are honest. That 20 per cent of judges are corrupt is only an inference drawn by the people.”

“Strike a balance”
Mr. Dhavan said the court should strike a balance between freedom of speech and contempt of court when genuine concerns were expressed about the state of affairs in the judiciary. He said the summary procedure of initiating contempt proceedings for writing against the judiciary would strike at the root of freedom of speech and expression. When Justice Kabir wanted to know whether Mr. Tejpal would tender an apology, Mr. Dhavan said, “Apology is wayward. What the court should see is whether something was done bona fide or not. It is an exercise in good faith. Tendering apology may not be the correct approach of the court as it has to strike a balance, viz was this a mischievous report or a bona fide report.”

He said that while a case like the Hawala scam was regarded as good journalism, contempt was registered on corruption being exposed in the judiciary. Justice Kabir intervened and asked Mr. Dhavan the meaning of Tehelka, to which Mr. Dhavan replied — “sensation.”

Mr. Dhavan brought to the notice of the court an article written by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in The Hindu expressing concern about corruption in judiciary, and said the issue should be addressed. Arguments will continue on December 7.