The top court had in November 2009 issued contempt notice to Bhushan and Tejpal for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to a news magazine. Tejpal was then editor of the magazine.
The apex court had on August 4 had also said that the court has not received the explanation/apology submitted by Bhushan and Tejpal so far and would pronounce its order on whether to accept them or not.
Explanation/apology submitted by Prashant Bhushan/Respondent No.1 and Tarun Tejpal/Respondent No.2, have not been received so far. In case we do not accept the explanation/apology, we will hear the matter. We reserve the order, the bench had said in its last week order.
During the brief hearing conducted last week through video-conferencing and mostly through whatsapp video call, the bench had said it does not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression but for the contempt there is a thin line.
Bhushan's office had later in the day said that the statement was made by him to the apex court on August 4.
The statement said that advocate Prashant Bhushan
refused to tender an apology but agreed to issue the statement.
In my interview to Tehelka in 2009 I have used the word corruption in a wide sense meaning lack of propriety. I did not mean only financial corruption or deriving any pecuniary advantage. If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same.
I unreservedly state that I support the institution of the judiciary and especially the Supreme Court
of which I am a part, and had no intention to lower the prestige of the judiciary in which I have complete faith. I regret if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that is, lower the reputation of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which could never have been my intention at all, the statement of Bhushan sent by his office to media had said.
It added that Tejpal's statement made to the court apparently contained a conditional apology for the offense it had caused the institution of the Supreme Court, as mentioned by senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Tejpal during the hearing.
On July 22, the top court had issued notice to Bhushan in a separate suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for his alleged derogatory tweets against the judiciary, saying his statements prima facie "brought the administration of justice in disrepute".
The apex court had on August 5 reserved its verdict on the suo motu contempt case against Bhushan.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.