Thread by @utkarsh_aanand

The 2009 criminal contempt case commences in #SupremeCourt.

Sr adv Rajeev Dhavan says the matter should go to a Constitution Bench, given teh significance it has. He adds Attorney General must also be heard.

Dhavan adds the question about whether any reference to corruption by judges would amount to contempt or not should be heard only by a Constitution Bench.

He refers to a revised set of questions submitted by Bhushan a day ago.

Dhavan reads out the questions framed for a scrutiny by a larger bench while also seeking a reconsideration of the #SupremeCourt judgment in the suo motu case, convicting #PrashantBhushan on Aug 14.

Dhavan asks for a rehaul of the jurisprudence on the contempt law, following the two contempt cases against adv #PrashantBhushan.

Justice Arun Mishra says will such questions arise when court initiates suo motu congnisance.

Mishra J: The main question is if alleging corruption against judges would amount to contempt per se or not. Most of the points raised by you will be covered when we discuss that. Some of your questions can still be discussed but it will require a long hearing.

#PrashantBhushan

Dhavan says all this can be summed up in two questions. One, the contours of the power of this court under Article 129 & its impact on free speech, especially when there is a question of a bonafide belief.

#SupremeCourt

Justice Misha says he is inclined to refer it to an appropriate bench. About issuance of a notice to the Attorney General, the judge says the other bench can take a call on that too.

This, after Justice Mishra remarks he will be retiring shortly.

#SupremeCourt

Sr adv Kapil Sibal, representing Tarun Tejpal as the editor of Tehelka magazine at the relevant time, concurs that the issues raised require to be examined by a larger bench.

#SupremeCourt

Justice Arun Mishra defers the 2009 criminal contempt case against #PrashantBhushan after his retirement.

The judge requests the #CJI to put this matter before an appropriate bench on Sep 10.