In a high-voltage hearing, the Supreme Court today ticked off activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan calling as “unreasonable” and the “most unfair” his plea seeking recusal of Justice J S Khehar from hearing a PIL that levels bribery allegations against politicians including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The petition seeks an SIT probe into alleged recovery of documents in income tax raids on two business houses in 2012 when Modi was Gujarat Chief Minister.
The apex court was irked as advocate Bhushan, appearing for an NGO, sought Justice Khehar’s recusal saying that the file, designating him as next CJI, was pending approval with the executive, headed by the Prime Minister.
“It is my duty as an officer of the court to point out that Your Lordship’s (Justice Khehar) file for elevation as CJI is pending before the government…,” he told the bench headed by Justice Khehar.
Taking umbrage, Justice Khehar and Justice Arun Mishra told the activist that he was doubting a Constitutional functionary and “this is not done”.
“You (Bhushan) are talking about the highest court of the country. Do you think we can succumb to any pressure? If you had any problem, you should have pointed out. It is very, very unfair. You are talking about the highest court. You are doubting a Constitutional functionary,” the bench said.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre, reacted sharply to Bhushan’s submissions and said,
“This is the cheapest tactics and has never been done in the Supreme Court. This is more unfortunate as has been done in a PIL. I am pained.”
The PIL has been heard on four dates by the bench headed by Justice Khehar which on Wednesday had questioned the NGO and Bhushan whether aspersions could be cast against the prime minister without placing “sufficient”, “firm” and “clear” materials.
It had also said that the PIL was based on “zero material” and was only making “insinuations”.
However, Bhushan, while seeking Justice Khehar’s recusal, said, “Though I do not have any doubt (about him), it is my duty, a painful duty, as an officer of the court (to say) that this matter be heard by some other bench or on reopening (after winter vacation).”
The bench said, “You (Bhushan) had no difficulty then.
Why should you say all this. It is most unfair. You appeared twice, thrice before us, but you did not say anything. Today you are saying things. We heard this first time.”
“This is not done. This is serious…We cannot be held to ransom. This is sheer contempt,” the bench said.
( Source – PTI )
