On Tuesday (October 13, 2020), Attorney General K K Venugopal said that the statements openly made on print and electronic media on pending issues in an effort to influence the judges and the public opinion are causing the institution great harm.
In pending cases, the top law officer expressed serious concern about media trials, while putting his arguments before a bench chaired by Justice A M Khanwilkar in a 2009 contempt case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
He said, "Today, as I watch TV, I see remarks based on statements made to the police on the bail application. Another pattern, for example, in a case such as Rafale, on the day the bench takes up the case, there is an article reporting on the case".
Venugopal submitted before the court that the issue needs to be addressed. For his part, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, said the question of sub-judice was already covered by the Constitution bench's Sahara judgment (2012). He said that taking up the problems would broaden the cause. Dhavan also pointed out that 10 legal questions were proposed by the petitioner and that three were framed for adjudication by the bench. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was editor of Tehelka magazines at the time, Tarun Tejpal, said the issue needs to be seen in the light of the modern communication systems. Venugopal said he would discuss the questions with Dhavan and Sibal and other parties, for determination by the court. On September 10, the top court sought assistance from Venugopal in the contempt case, resulting from an interview with Bhushan's Tehelka magazine accusing half of India's 16 retired Chief Justices of corruption. On August 31, after having found him guilty of suo motu criminal contempt in a separate case on August 14 for his tweets, the high court levied a nominal fine on Bhushan as a sentence on Re one. Among the questions framed for consideration in the 2009 case are what procedure should be adopted if statements are made in public alleging corruption in sitting and retired judges.
Special NDPS court while granting bail finds that charges under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 does not attract in Rhea Chakraborty's Brother's case
CelebStreet
Dec 11, 2020
Dev Kumar Patel
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
3 Shares
The special NDPS Court granted bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty’s brother Showik Chakraborty last week. While passing the order, the court observed that the stringent charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 of financing illicit drug trafficking did not apply to his case.The charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 deals with ‘financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders', and attracts a punishment in the range of 10 to 20 years of rigorous...
Sushant Singh Rajput case: Bombay HC adjourns plea by late actor's sisters to quash Rhea Chakraborty's FIR against them
CelebStreet
Dec 05, 2020
Gautami Chakravarty
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
5 Shares
The Bombay High Court has reportedly adjourned a plea by the two sisters of late Bollywood actor, Sushant Singh Rajput, to January 7, 2021. The sisters' advocate sought an adjournment in the matter. According to reports, the FIR is against Rajput's sisters - Priyanka Singh and Meetu Singh - and a doctor for forging a prescription of medicines supposedly for anxiety which are prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Sushant Singh Rajput, aged 34 years,...
![NBSA Directs AajTak, Zee News, News 24 and India TV to Comply with its order to Air Apologizes for Insensitive Reporting on Sushant Singh Rajput's Death [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_2923_NBSA_Directs.jpeg)
![Rhea Writes to CBITake Action Against NeighborDimple Thawani for making false statements [Read Letter]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_8063_ssr.jpeg)
Facebook Comments