Judges bribery case: 3-judge Supreme Court bench likely to hear plea today

NEW DELHI: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court is likely to give its verdict on Tuesday on the maintainability of a plea that sought a SIT probe into bribery allegations involving higher judiciary. The bench while reserving its verdict on Monday termed the charges as “scandalous and scurrilous” and tantamount to contempt.

The three-judge bench, comprising justices RK Agrawal, Arun Mishra, and AM Khanwilkar wondered how CBI could have filed an FIR naming unknown public functionaries while arresting former Odisha HC judge IM Quddusi in connection with bribery charges in a medical admissions case.

“How can the CBI file such as FIR doubts at the judiciary at the highest level,” Justice Mishra wondered. “If these kinds of FIRs are filed discrediting the institution, no judge will be spared,” he observed. “Where are we going? You are denigrating the entire institution on the basis of rumours,” the bench said.

Justice Arun Mishra wondered whether judges could be blamed for any claims made outside court by a third party.

“Anybody can say anything, sell anybody in the corridors. How can you attribute motive to judges?” The remark came when Attorney General KK Venugopal urged petitioner Kamini Jaiswal, whose case is being argued by Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, to withdraw the case which he said had bitterly divided the bench and the bar right down the middle.

“There is no proof that any favour was shown,” Venugopal said, arguing that the bench had not shown favour to the educational entity named in the CBI case. He was backed by additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan insisted that the issue be referred to a five-judge bench as originally directed. He cited Articles 142 and 144 to contend that these orders still stood, and must be respected.

Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan insisted that the bench refer the case back to the five-judge bench to examine the demand for a SIT probe headed by a former CJI. He said that all that he was asking was for the CJI not to deal with the case either administratively or judicially since the charges were related to a case he had dealt with.

Justice Arun Mishra, however, demanded to know why a second petition was filed on the same while one was pending, and observed that it was tantamount to forum shopping and contempt. “Isn’t this sheer contempt of court,” he observed.