Skip to main content

Contempt petitions against Prashant Bhushan meant to intimidate critics: Top activists

Counterview Desk
More than 100 activists, academics and former civil servants have signed a statement expressing solidarity with leading human rights advocate Prashant Bhushan, against whom contempt petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. The statement says, "Unfortunately, expressing an apprehension that the government might be misleading the apex court is being alleged to be contempt of court."
Signed, among others, by Aruna Roy, Wajahat Habibullah, Medha Patkar, Harsh Mander, Binayak Sen, Prabhat Patnaik, Anjali Bhardwaj, Prakash Singh, Shailesh Gandhi, Nikhil Dey, Syeda Hameed, Sandeep Pandey, Yogendra Yadav, Prafulla Samantara, EAS Sarma, Sucheta Dalal, and Aakar Patel, the statement insists, "We see this as a clear attempt to intimidate and silence one of the leading advocates in the country, who unflinchingly takes up issues of corruption and abuse of power and has relentlessly supported the struggles of the vulnerable and marginalized."

Text of the statement:

We are writing to express our concern and deep anguish at the filing of contempt petitions against well-known human rights advocate Prashant Bhushan. He was appearing in a matter challenging the appointment of the interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and seeking greater transparency in the process of appointment of the CBI director.
In October 2018, the central government had unilaterally, without the approval of the high powered selection committee, appointed Nageshwar Rao as interim CBI director.
This decision was quashed by the Supreme Court in January 2019 on the grounds that it was not made as per the procedure laid down in Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which mandates that the appointment can only be done on the basis of the recommendations of a high powered selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India (or any judge of the SC nominated by him) and the Leader of Opposition (or leader of single largest party in opposition).
Just two days after the judgment, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued an order again appointing Nageshwar Rao as interim CBI director. The order stated that this was done “as per the earlier arrangement" and did not, in any manner, indicate that it had the approval of the selection committee.
On January 14, 2019, a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by Mallikarjun Kharge, who is a member of the high powered selection committee, was published by the "Indian Express" and also put in the public domain.
The letter signed by Mallikarjun Kharge explicitly states that:
“9. Finally, we come to the vexing issue of the appointment of an interim director unilaterally by the government. The appointment of an interim director (a post that does not legally exist as per the DSPE Act) has once again been made without consulting the Selection Committee.
"10. The Government seemed to have made up its mind on appointing an Interim director and hence this was never placed before the selection committee in the 10th Jan 2019 meeting. This appointment of an interim director is illegal and against section 4A(1) and 4A(3) of the DSPE Act.”
In a hearing on February 1, 2019 in the Supreme Court, the Attorney General (AG) stated that the selection committee had taken a decision on interim CBI director and handed over minutes of the relevant meetings in a sealed cover to the bench. A copy of the minutes, when sought, was denied to Prashant Bhushan, with the AG claiming that the minutes were confidential.
Subsequent to the hearing, Mallikarjun Kharge confirmed to Prashant Bhushan that, as indicated in his letter, the issue of appointment of the interim CBI director was not discussed in the selection committee. This naturally raised serious doubts about the veracity of the documents presented in a sealed cover by the government to the apex court, and Prashant Bhushan raised this concern in his tweets, which are reproduced below:
“Today in CBI Dir appt case, the government made a startling new claim that Nageswara Rao was selected as the interim director in the HPC meeting on 11th January when they decided to transfer out Alok Verma! This seems to be at variance from LOP Kharge's version. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/prashant-bhushan-vs-arun-mishra-j--142574 (sic)”.
“I have just confirmed personally from the Leader of Opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re appt of Nageswara Rao as interim director CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting! (sic)”.
“See the letter of LOP Kharge re the unilateral appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim director CBI by govt, w/o going through HPC of PM, CJI & LOP. Yet govt produced minutes of meeting saying that HPC approved appt. Seems govt gave fabricated minutes to court! Contempt of Court! (a photograph of the letter by Mr. Kharge was included in the tweet) (sic)”.
Subsequently, contempt petitions were filed against Prashant Bhushan alleging that the tweets amount to contempt of court. One of the contempt petitions included the redacted minutes of the meetings of the high powered selection committee, which had been handed over to the Court in a sealed envelope by the AG and denied to Prashant Bhushan on the grounds that they are confidential.
The redacted minutes state that the selection committee, with the dissenting view of Mallikarjun Kharge, decided that the Central government may post a suitable officer to look after the duties of the CBI director till the appointment of a new director of CBI.
If it was possible to make the redacted minutes of the selection committee public, it is inexplicable why they were kept secret earlier. If the minutes had been disclosed or shared with the petitioners, the doubts expressed by Prashant Bhushan in his tweets would never have arisen.
In fact, this is precisely the reason why greater transparency in the appointment process is imperative - undue secrecy erodes public trust and raises suspicion and doubts in the minds of people. Transparency is a pre-requisite to instil public confidence and faith in democratic institutions.
In the given circumstances, it is concerning that an attempt is being made to misconstrue doubts raised about the veracity of material handed over in a sealed cover by the government as contempt of court. Unfortunately, expressing an apprehension that the government might be misleading the apex court is being alleged to be contempt of court.
We see this as a clear attempt to intimidate and silence one of the leading advocates in the country, who unflinchingly takes up issues of corruption and abuse of power and has relentlessly supported the struggles of the vulnerable and marginalized.
We stand in complete solidarity with Prashant Bhushan.

Comments

TRENDING

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Church in India 'seems to have lost' moral compass of unequivocal support to the poor

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*
In 2017, Pope Francis dedicated a special day, to be observed by the Universal Church, every year, as the ‘World Day of the Poor’. This year it will be observed on November 17 on the theme ‘The hope of the poor shall not perish for ever’; in a message for the day Pope Francis says:

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”