Asking the Centre and the ECI to file their responses and posting the matter for hearing after six weeks, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi while expressing doubts over the effectiveness of said regulations, said that the issue raises some constitutional questions.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the scale and complexity of the alleged corporate fraud in the RCOM case exceeded even the financial irregularities uncovered in the Indiabulls matter.
Singhvi said that the “determination of citizenship lies exclusively with the Central government under Sections 8 and 9 of the Citizenship Act or with the courts and Foreigners Tribunals,” and not with ECI acting through Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
A Bench of Chief Justice-designate Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea, even as the Solicitor General attempted to allay concerns that the investigation was attributing fault to the deceased pilot.
Prashant Bhushan informed that Anjali Bhardwaj, a member of Common Cause, and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) have filed the petition and he is the lawyer on their behalf.
'Why are Courts helpless when institutions that need to protect the constitution and the laws show ‘open contempt’ for both?' he said.
During the hearing, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan quoted Mahatma Gandhi and contended that he will not apologise for the two tweets and cheerfully accept the punishment that will be given to him.
The group criticized the statement issued by 'Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms', (CJAR) on August 15, condemning the judgment and further calling upon the Supreme Court, and every judge, to reconsider their decision.
Advocate Bhushan has said that he was 'exercising his freedom of speech' and giving his opinion about the functioning of the court, and it does not amount to 'obstruction of justice', necessitating the contempt proceedings.
The petition sought directions to declare unconstitutional a contempt law provision, which makes scandalising courts an offence.
