AMICUS CURIE versus PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR.

AMICUS CURIE versus PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR.

Contempt proceedings are maintainable if, on prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds, the Supreme Court initiates action on its own motion, even if the information was brought by Amicus Curiae and even without the requisite consent otherwise required under Rule 3(c). The proceedings in such cases fall under Rule 3(a) (suo motu) of the 1975 Rules and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; administrative lapses do not affect substantive maintainability.

Parties
Applicant: Amicus Curiae; Respondent No.1: Prashant Bhushan; Respondent No.2: Tarun J. Tejpal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 10 of 2009 / Order on Maintainability of Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
Proceedings maintained and directed to be heard on merits.
Legal Topics
Suo Motu Contempt Jurisdiction, Maintainability of Contempt Proceedings, Procedure for Contempt, Consent of Attorney General/solicitor General
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Suo Motu Contempt Jurisdiction Maintainability of Contempt Proceedings Procedure for Contempt Consent of Attorney General/solicitor General

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amicus Curiae

Applicant

Prashant Bhushan

Respondent No.1

Tarun J. Tejpal

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 10 of 2009 / Order on Maintainability of Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contempt proceedings initiated on the application of Amicus Curiae are maintainable without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
  2. 2 Whether an administrative lapse in placing the application before the Court on the judicial side instead of administrative side affects maintainability of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Contempt proceedings are maintainable if, on prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds, the Supreme Court initiates action on its own motion, even if the information was brought by Amicus Curiae and even without the requisite consent otherwise required under Rule 3(c). The proceedings in such cases fall under Rule 3(a) (suo motu) of the 1975 Rules and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; administrative lapses do not affect substantive maintainability.

Court Disposition

Proceedings maintained and directed to be heard on merits.

Orders

  • Contempt petition held maintainable.
  • Respondents entitled to file further affidavits within eight weeks.