IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Crl.M,P. NO. _ OF 2019 IN

coNTEMpT PETTTION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019

IN THE M TTER OF:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN ... RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTE OF:

ARUNA ROY & ORS. ... APPLICANTJ

PAPE B K (FOR INDEX KiNDLY SEE INSIDE)

(APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT)

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: KAMINI JAISWAL INDEX

s. No. PARTICULARS PAGES 1, Application for Impalement with Affldavit l-l? lz. Annexure A1: Copy of the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court l3'12.

13. Annexure A2: Copy of the letter dated 14.01.2019 by Mr. 13,1? published by the Indian Express

4 Annex re A3: Copy of the Media Repoft in the Hindu dated 01.02,2019 a8

5. Annexure A4: Copy of the Medla Report in the Indian Express dated 01.02,2019 e,g I I IN THE

CIVIL ORIGINAL JU RISDICTION Crl.M.P. NO. OF 2019 IN CoNTEMPT PETITION- (CRL.) NO, 1 OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA ... PENTIONER

VERSUS

SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN ... RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

1. ARUNA ROY R/O MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGHATAN VILLAGE DEVDUNGRI, POST BARAR, DISTRICT RAJSAMAND-313341 RA]ASTHAN

2. WA]AHAT HABIBULLAH R/O 529 MT, KAILASH TOWER III EAST OF KAILASH NEW DELHI

3. ARUNDHATI ROY R/O 233,IORBAGH SECOND FLOOR NEW DELHI - 11OOO3

4. HARSH MANDER Rio c 6 6233 VASANT KUN] NEW DELHI - 11OO7O

5. JAYATI GHOSH R/O 52 DAKSHINAPURAM ]AWAHARI.AL NEHRU UNIVERSITY NEW DELHI - 110067

6. PRABHAT PATNAIK NO 124 NATIONAL MEDIA CENTRE CAMPUS SHANKAR CHOWK, NH8 GURGAON _ T22OO2 HARYANA 3- 7. INDU PRAKASH SINGH R/O 18 A, MIG FI-ATS SHEIKH SARAI, PHASE 1 NEW DELHI - 110017

8. SHAILESH GANDHI R/OB2GOKULAPARTMENT PODAR ROAD SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI4OOO54

9. BEZWADA WILSON R/O 36/13, GROUND FLOOR EAST PATEL NAGAR DELHI - 11OOO8

10. NIKHIL DEY R/O MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGHATAN VILI.AGE DEVDUNGRI, POST BARAR, DISTRICT RAJSAMAND-3L334L RAJASTHAN ...APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS

AN APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AS RESPONDENTS WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

To,

THE HON'BLE CHIEF ]USTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The humble application of the applicants abovementioned

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

declared 1, The Applicants are citizens of India' The people of India inthePreambleoftheConstitution,whichtheygaveunto themselves,theirresolvetosecuretoallthecitizenslibetyof thought and expression. This resolve is reflected as a part fundamental right of a citizen in Article 19(1)(a) found in III of the Constitution. 'Freedom of Speech'is the freedom to speak v freely, without fear, without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and impafting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

2. A brief description of each applicant is given below:

i)Aruna Roy is a social & democratic activist. She was a paft of the Indian Administrative Services from 1968 to 1975. She resigned to work directly with people not merely for their rights to access services, but to claim the constitutional rights of equality and justice. Led by Aruna Roy in 1987, after two intense local struggles for land and minimum wages, the workers and peasants formed the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan in 1990. The MKSS and its collective campaigning helped ensure the passage of the Right to Information (RTI) Law and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA, now MGNREGA) by the Indian Parliament in 2005. From 2004 - 2006, she was a member of the National Advisory Councll (NAC), set up by the UPA Government, chaired by Sonia Gandhi. She joined the second NAC set up in 2010, as a member from 2010-2013. Apart from her involvement with campaigns for the rights to information and work she has spoken out against attacks on religious minorities and the right to free speech and expression. She was a member of the 'Concerned Citizens Tribunal', which investigated the organized violence and killing of innocent people in the state of Gujarat, India in 2002. She has published extensively on the rights to information, right to work, civil libefties, minority rights, free speech and the right to dissent.

ii) Wajahat Habibullah was the chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities. He held the position of the first Chief' Information Commissioner of India, He was an officer of the h Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from 1968 untll his retirement in September 2005' He was also Secretary to the in the Ministry of Panchayati Raj and Textiles and Consumer Affairs. He was appointed as a member of the World Bank's Info Appeals Board in July 2010. He was a Member of Advisory Council, Brookings Doha Center, International Advisory Council, Doha, Qatar, Member, Advisory Council, USIP Education and Trainlng Center, Washington DC' Chairman, Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar(J&K). He is the recipient of Rajiv Gandhi Award for Excellence in Secularism-1994, Gold Medal for Distinguished Service; Governor of Jammu & Kashmir-1996 and Lala Ram' Mohan History Award; Delhi University-1967' iii) Arundhati Roy ls the author of two novels - The Ministry of Utmost Happiness and The God of Small Things which won The BookerPrizeinlggT.Shehaswrittenseveralbooksofcollected non-fiction. iv) Dr. Harsh Mander is human rights and peace worker, author' columnist, researcher and teacher. He works with survivors of mass violence, hunger, homeless persons and street children' He is the Director, Centre for Equity Studies, and founder of the justice; campaigns Aman Biradari, for secularism, peace and Nyayagrah, for legal justice and reconciliation for the survivors of communal violence; Dll Se, for street children, and 'Hausla'for urban homeless people, for homeless shelters, recovery shelters and street medicine. He was Special Commissioner to the Supreme Court of India in the Right to Food case for twelve years from 2005-17. He is Special Monitor of the statutory National Human Rights Commission for Minority Rights' He convenes and edits the annual India Exclusion Report' He workedformerlyinthelndianAdministrativeServiceinMadhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh for almost two decades' Among his s awards are the Rajiv Gandhi National Sadbhavana Award for peace work, the M.A. Thomas National Human Rights Award 2002, the South Asian Minority Lawyers Harmony Award 2012 and the Chisthi Harmony Award 2012. v) Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics at lawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her research interests include globalisation, international trade and finance, employment patterns, macroeconomic policy, gender issues, poverty and inequality. She has authored and/or edited a dozen books and more than 180 scholarly articles, most recently Demonetisation (with CP Decoded: A critique of India's monetary experiment Elgar Chandrasekhar and Prabhat Patnaik, Routledge 20L7),the (co- Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development edited with Erik Reinert and Rainer Kattel, Edward Elgar 2016) and India and the International Economy, (oxford University through Press 2015). Her research output has been recognised severaInationalandinternationalprizes,includIngtheM. the social Adisheshaiah Award for distinguished contributions to sciences in India in 2015; the International Labour 2010; the Organisation's Decent Work Research Prize for Fondazione NordSud Prize for Social Sciences 2010 of the and the Pescarabruzzo, Italy; and the Ava Maiti Award Kolkata' She Satyendranath Sen Prize from the Asiatic Society' at has advised governments in India and other countries different levels. She was the Chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh CommissiononFarmers,Welfarein2004,andMemberofthe Prime Minister National Knowledge Commission reporting to the oflndia(2005-09)'shehasconsultedforseveralinternational UNRISD organisations including ILO, UNDP, UNCTAD, UN-DESA' media like and UN Women. She writes regularly for popular newspapers, journals and blogs' Emeritus at the vi) Prabhat Patnaik is currently Professor the Sukhamoy lawaharlal Nehru University where he held 6 Chakravafi Chair at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at the time of his retirement. Earlier he was a member of the Faculty of Economics and Politics of the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Clare College, He holds a D'Phil in Economics from the University of Oxford, having joined Balliol College and later Nuffield College as a Rhodes Scholar' He has an Honorary Doctorate from the University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies). He was the Vice-Chairman of the' Kerala State Planning Board between 2006 and 2011 and a member of the interactive panel of experts set up by the president of the uN General Assembly after the economic crisis of 2008. He is the author of several books and articles in Economics, vii) Indu Prakash Singh is a human rights defender, poet, author, a feminist and a PRA/ PLA practitioner / facilitator and is currently Consultant with large number of development organisations. He was recently made a member of the Monitoring Committee for Progress of Shelter for Urban Homeless in Delhi' In 2010 he and his team in IGSSS had a National cityMakers caravan (ncMc) that travelled most of India (C) demanding more shelters for the homeless (that time W P 196 of 2001 was active in the Supreme Court of India, and had orders for shelters across the country) and also preparing everyone to ensure that Census enumerates the homeless to their exact numbers. Indu has been a leading voice in the country on issues of urban homelessness' Indu is also one of the of Petitioners in the W P (C) 572 I 2OO3 in the Supreme Court India, on the issue of homelessness' Indu also assisted the (C) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its suo moto matter, W P 29 / 2010 (which came about due to the advocacy done by the network,ShahriAdhikarManch:BegharonKesaath(SAM:BKS) of which he too was one of the Executive Committee Members) byfilingrelevantaffidavitsandredressingthesituationforthe homeless. He is also the Facilitator, CityMakers Mission ? International. He has worked in the social sector, on range of issues: Children, Youth, Women, Destitute, Chemical Dependents, Elderly, health: leprosy/ TBl HIV-AIDS/ Mental Health/ Community Health, rural and urban deprivations/ human rights violations, environment & biodiversity, food security for over 30 years. viii) Shailesh Gandhi is a first generation entrepreneur and a Distinguished Alumnus awardee of IIT Bombay. Shailesh was part of the National RTI movement which was involved in drafting the National Act. He was convener of the National Campaign for People's Right To Information (NCPRI). The only RTI activist to have been chosen as a Central Information Commissioner, he disposed a record of over 20000 cases in 3 years and 9 months, ensuring most cases were decided In less than 90 days. He gave many landmark decisions on RTI, apart from organizing the flrst digital paper-less office in the Commission. He is passionately pursuing the cause of evolving ways for a time bound justice delivery system, and improving governance systems apart from conducting RTI workshops and advocating active citizenship. He has published a book: RTI Act- authentic interpretation of the Statute and a paper critiquing Supreme Court judgments on RTI. ix) Bezwada Wilson is an Indian activist and one of the founders and National Convenor of the Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA),' an Indian human rights organization that has been campaigning for the eradication of manual scavenging, the construction, operation and employment of manual scavengers which has been illegal in India since 1993. His work at SKA, a community- driven movement, has been recognized by the Ashoka Foundation which has nominated him a Senior Fellow. On 27 July 2016, he was honoured with the Ramon Magsaysay Award. In 1994, Bezwada helped found Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) I along with S. R. Sankaran and Paul Diwakar. SKA's goal is to end the practice of manual scavenging and help those engaged In it find dignified work. In 2003 Bezwada and four other team members moved to Delhi to launch the Safai Karmachari. Andolan nationwide. In 2003, Bezwada and the SKA initiated the filing of a PIL in the Supreme Court of India. SKA and 18 other civil society organizations, manual scavengers and individuals signed the affldavit as litigants naming all states and government departments of Railways, Defence, Judlciary and Education as violators of the Manual Scavenging Prohibition Act,The PIL was a major step in the efforts to abolish manual scavenging. All the states and central ministries were forced to address the issue of manual scavenging. The Planning Commission of India constituted a sub-group on safai karmacharis with Bezwada as its convenor. x) Nikhil Dey is a social activist. He, along with many orhers helped found the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). Since 1990, he has been a full time worker of the MKSS, and has been involved in struggles of the poor for justice, including grass root struggles for land and the payment of minimum wages. He has been a founding member of peoples platforms like National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), and the Soochana Evam Rozgaar Adhikar Abhiyan (SR Abhiyan) who put together "peoples drafts" of the Right to Information and Employment Guarantee Bills, and have consistently worked for their effective implementation. Nikhil Dey is also part of the effort by peoples movements to build institutions of participatory democracy. He has been integrally involved in large state wide campaigns for peoples monitoring of education (Shiksha Ka Sawaal) in Rajasthan in 2016, and the SR Abhlyan ls currently planning a Swasthya Ka Sawaal Campaign in Rajasthan' To make progress in the journey from transparency to accountability, the MKSS and SR Abhiyan are currently in the q midst of a campaign for the enactment of a "social accountability" legislation at the State and National level' He has been a member of the Central Employment Guarantee Council (CEGC) and of the State Employment Guarantee Council of Rajasthan. He is a Co-convener of the NCPRI, and is currently a member of the Rajasthan State Audit Advisory Board. He was a member of the Steering Committee of the Multilateral Open Government Partnership (OGP) from 2011 to 2014' He is currently an oGP Envoy.

3.Thattheapplicantsareconcernedabouttheinitiationofthe present contempt proceeding against the Respondent for exercising hls 'freedom of speech', without fear, without censorship in raising issues pertaining to the case of challenging the appointment of CBI Interim Director, Nageshwar Rao, in which the Respondent was appearing as advocate for the petitioners. It appears that the initiation of present contempt proceedings are an assault on the freedom of speech and expressionofthecitizenofthiscountryandanattempttostifle this right by using the power of contempt'

TheorderofthisHon'bleCourtdated6.02'2019,issuingnotice ontheContemptPetitionsbytheAttorneyGeneralforlndiaand the Union of India is annexed as Annexure A1(Pages IB to 13' I

Factua! Context to the tweet by Mr. Prashant Bhushan

4. On Janaury 15, 2019 a petition was filed In the Supreme Coutt challenging the appointment of Nageshwar Rao as interim Director as it appeared that the appointment had not been approved by the High Powered Selection Committee and also seeking directions to ensure transparency in the appointment process of CBI Director. ,D

5. On January 15, 2019 a letter by Mr. Mallikarjun Kharge addressed to the Prime Minister was reported by the media and put in the public domain by journalists through twitter, in which in point 9 & 10 it was clearly stated that the appointment was not even discussed, much less approved by the selection committee, of which he was a member and attended the meetings. Polnt 9 and 10 are pasted below:

"9. Finally, we come to the vexing issue of the appointment of an Interim Director unilaterally by the Government. The appointment of an Interim Director (a post that does not legally exist as per the DSPE Ad) has once again been made without consulting the Seledion Committee. 10. The Government seemed to have made up its mind on appointing an Interim Director and hence this was never placed before the selection committee in the lfr Jan 2019 meeting. This appolntment of an Interim Director is illegal and against Sections 4A(1) and 4A(3) ot the DSPE Act."

A copy of the letter by Mr. Mallikarjun Kharge, dated, 14th January 2019 as publlshed by the Indian Express, is annexed as Annexure A2 (Page atr to & I

6. It is pertinent to note that the government dld not refute allegatlons made by Mr. Kharge, It is only during the hearlng on the 1* of February before this Hon'ble Court, the learned Attorney General for India appearing for the government, claimed that the appointment of Mr. Nageshwar Rao had been approved by the High Powered Committee and handed over minutes of the meeting in a sealed cover. These statements of the learned Attorney General have been repofted widely in the media and are quoted below. ,,

Court that the "The Centre on Friday informed the Supreme prior the high-power committee's consent had been obtained to governments appointment of M. Nageswar Rao as interim CBI Director. 'The high power commiffee had indeed given permission for the appointment of the interim CBI Director''

Attorney General K. K. Venugopal submitted"'

(A copy of the media report in The Hindu dated 1'02'2019 is annexed as Annexure A3 (Page aB ao - )

"Meanwhile, the Centre informed the apex court that it had taken the permission of a high-powered committee headed by Prime Minster to appoint Rao as the CBI interim director - the petition by Common Cause had contended that the consent of the committee was apparently not taken for the posting."

(A copy of the media. report in The Indian Express dated L.O}.zOlg is annexed as Annexure A4 (Page ,.1 to t- )

7, Peftinently, those minutes were not shared with the Respondent' It was natural therefore that he would make his own enquiries from the Leader of the single largest parfy in the , Mr' Mallikarjun Kharge, who was a member of the three member High Powered Selection Committee and particularly given the fact that he had written to the Prime Minister on 14th January 20lgasstatedabove,whereinhehadcategoricallystatedthat the appointment of the Interim Director was made "without consultlng the Selection Committee". l2- 8. After this hearing, in a telephonic conversation with Mr, Kharge, he confirmed with Prashant Bhushan that the appointment of CBI Interim Director was not discussed at the High Powered Committee meeting. It was in these circumstances, being denied the minutes of the High Powered Commitee by the learned Attorney General for India and relying on the information given by Mr. Kharge over the phone, Prashant Bhushan tweeted as follows:

1* February 3:18p,m.

Today in CBI Dir appt case, the govt made a startling new claim that Nageswara Rao was selected as the interim director in the HPC meeting on 1lth January when they decided to transfer out Atok Verma! This seems to be at variance from LOP Kharge's version

1s February 3:44p.m.

I have just confirmed personally from the Leader of Opposition Mr Kharge that no discussron or decision in HPC meet was taken re appt of Nageswara Rao as interim Director CBI.The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting!

9, The tweets merely pointed to the discrepancy between the publicly available letter of a member of the High Powered Committee and the claim of government, made through sealed cover which were denied to Prashant Bhushan. The tweets in no way made any disparaging remarks against the AG or his conduct. The statements on twitter were based on the information available in the public domain. When one member under his own signature has stated explicitly that a particular matter was not discussed, which has not been denied by the t7 government to our knowledge and on the other hand the government refuses to divulge the minutes and claims are made on basis of information in sealed covers, it would be reasonable to raise questions over material handed over in sealed cover, This is especially so as in the recent Rafale matter, the government itself moved a correction petition stating that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted material presented to it in a sealed cover.

10. The whole issue of lack of transparency in the appointment process ralses suspiclon In the minds of the public, especially in the context when the government had just 3 months prior unilaterally appointed a CBI Director, which was later struck down by the court. The government has been systematically denying all Information about deliberative process around' appointments especially to oversight bodies. In the case of CIC and also CBI Director, information is being denied even under the RTI Act. In fact it is pertinent to note that until 4th February 2019, the only information in the public domain about the proceedings of the High Powered Commitee, were the note by Kharge.

11. Therefore, the Applicants are of the considered view that what Prashant Bhushan said in his tweets were not unreasonable in the circumstances and the applicants would probably have said the same thing in similar circumstances. In any case the subject of those tweets cannot under any circumstances be treated as an issue of contempt of court.

L2. The notice issued in this case by the couft to Prashant Bhushan indicates that the court wants to deal with the larger issue of lawyers and litigants commenting publicly about pending couft proceedings and whether any restraint should be put on lawyers and litigants comments on pending couft proceedings' Ir{ The applicants feel that any restraint on lawyers and litigants on commenting on pending couft proceedings in matters of public interest would have a seriously deleterious impact on not merely the freedom of speech of lawyers and litigants but also on the right of the people and civil society to be informed about pending court proceedings which are of public interest. The applicants feel that lawyers and litigants involved in the cases are usually the best Informed about the proceedings and therefore they are most likely to provide accurate information about the proceedings. As this court has held in many judgements the public interest involved in people getting information about pending court proceedings of public interest outweighs any prejudlce to judicial proceedings. That would apply equally and perhaps with greater force to statements made by lawyers and litigants since they are likely to be better informed. Thls would only have the effect of depriving the people of accurate information about the cases without any benefit whatsoever since others including the media are already permitted to talk about those cases.

13. Many of the applicants have filed public interest petitions before this Court and feel that it is important that accurate information is disseminated and have also therefore spoken and written about those proceedings in the public. The applicants therefore have a vital interest in the decision of the couft in this matter and would therefore like to intervene to make written and oral submissions to this court. The applicants would also like to be intervene in the present contempt petition and face the consequence of this contempt if any, along with Respondent.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is most respectFully prayed that this'

Hon'ble Court may be Pleased to: II a) Allow the present application and implead the Applicants as respondents in the CRL. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2019

b) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL.

APPLICANTS

THROUGH

(KAMINI JAISWAL) COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS NEW DELHI DATED: 01.03.2019 ,U IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL OR]GINAL JURISDICTION Crl,M.P. NO. OF 2019 IN CoNTEMPT PETITION- (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

ARUNA ROY &ORS. APPLICANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Indu Prakash Singh, S/o Late Shri Wg' Cdr. D.D. Singh R/o 1BA, MIG Flats, sheikh Sarai Phase-I, New Delhi-1Lo oL7, do hereby solemnly affirm and as under:

1. That i am the Intervenor/ Applicant No. 7 in the present Intervention Application and such I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present application' I have been duly authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of all the other intervenors in this aPPlication. 2. That the contents of accompanying Intervention Application are true ., o correct to the best of my knowledge and belief as per ) -4. c legal n rmation derived from the record of the case, and the

of the law and are believed ,N D u bmissions made on my understanding

to be true and correct,

3. That the Annexures are true copies of the respective Originals' t? 4. That the averments of facts stated herein above are true to my

knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom. () (^ DEPONENT

VERIFICATION I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affldavit are true and correct to my knowledge and bellef, no part of it is false and nothing materials has been concealed there from. Verified at New Delhi on this 28th day of February,20L9

IUEI! I IIIED BY DEPONENT^

J ED

Notary , Delhl (As d)

'lur, I 8; lg f,xxexug€- Al

1 SECTION PIL.W ITEM NO.8 + 11 COURT NO's SUPREME COURT OF I NDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

writ Petition(s) (civil) No(s) ' 54/20L9 Petitioner ( s ) COMMON CAUSE & ANR.

VERSUS Respondent(s) UNION OF INDIA & ANR' ORDERS'/DIRECTIONS) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No'8979/2019-APPROPRIATE with contempt Petition (crI') No' t/.?9+s- i""i"rbt Petition (crl') No' z/2o7e on for hearing today' Date : 06-02-2019 These petitions were called ARUN MISHRA CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Counsel for the General parties Mr. K, K. Venugopal, Attorney Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr, Raiat Nair, Adv ' Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Adv ' MS. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv ' Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. A. K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, AdV ' Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Ms, Bhavana Duhoon, Adv '

MT, Prashant Bhushan, Adv ' Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv ' MS, Cheryl D'Souza, Adv. hearing the counsel the court made the following UPoN ORDER t t 4 parties hrf'frr* Heard the learned counsel for the ' Arguments concluded. Order reserved. D

2 tq

f m t titi crl . t/ an nt it No. 2/2otg HeardSh.K.K.venugopal,IearnedAttorneyGeneralforlndia' and Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Soticitor General of India' To contend that by act in question, contempt of court has been committed, reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in RE : P.c.sEN (Criminal Appea1 No' 119 of 1966), reported in (1969)2ScR649.whereinthefollowingobservationshavebeenmade

by this court : - "8. The 7aw relating to contenpt of court is welT settTed. Any act done or writing pubTished which is caTcuLated to bring a court or a Judge into contenpt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the Lawfu7 process of the court, is a contenpt of court : R. v. Gray, [7gOO] 2 Q',,D, 36 at p' 40' contenpt hy speech or writing nay be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing nankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard' It is incunbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings fron being nisrepresented, for prejudicing the ninds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finaTTy heard has pernicious consequences ' speeches or writings nisrepresenting the proceedings of the court or prejudicing the puhTic for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding anount to contenpt' To nake a speech tending to influence the result of a pending triaT' whether civiT or crininaT is a grave contenpt' connents on pending proceedings, if enanating fron o" &e

3 the parties or their Tawyers, are generaTTy a nore serious contenpt than those coning fron independent sources, The question in a77 cases of connent on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere' with the due course of justice' The question is not so nuch of the intention of the contemner as whether it is caTculated to interfere with the adninistration of iustice' As observed by the JudiciaT comnittee in Debi Prasad sharna and Ors' p' 224: v. The King'Emperor , L.R' 70 I' A' 276 at ,,.... the test applied by the .... Board which heard the reference was whether the words complained of were in the circunstances caTcuTated to obstruct or interfere with the course of iustice and the due adninistration of the 7aw'" If, therefore, the speech which was broadcast by the chief Minister was calculated to interfere with declared the course of justice, it was tiable to be he had a contempt of the Court even assuning that not intended thereby to interfere with the due ba7 Kumar course of justice, There is nothing in sai on which Cupta and ors. v. B' K' Sen and Anr " counsel for the appetlant reTied, which supports his contention that intention of the contemner is the decisive fest. The observations of Inan' J" the speaking for the naiority of the court that appeTlants should be acquitted, because they "had at no tine intended to interfere with the course of justice and their conduct did not tend to interfere that with the course of j ustice" , does not inpTY to conduct which tends to or is calculated interfere with the adninistration of justice is not the 7iab7e to be punished as contenPt because the contenner had no intention to interfere with a. a\ 4 course of iustice. Nor does the iudgnent of the Judicial Comnittee in Arthur Reginald Perera v' The that King, [7957] A.c. 482 support the contention in deternining whether conduct which is otherwise calculated to interfere with the due adninistration of justice witl not be contenpt of court because on the part of the contenner there was no intention to interfere with the adrninistration of iustice' In that case, a nenber of the House of Representatives in ceylon, on receiving a compTaint fron sone of the prisoners about the practice of producing when foTTowed by the JaiT Authorities in the court an appeal fiTed by the prisoners was being heard' book that made an entry in the prison visitors' "The present practice of appeals of renand prisoners being heard in their absence is not healthy. when represented by counseT or otherwise the prisoner should be present at proceedings" ' It Information conveyed to Perera was inaccurate' was held by the Judicial connittee that Perera what be acted in good faith and in discharge of of the beTieved to he his public duty as a nenber any TegisTature, and that he had not connitted no direct contenpt of court because the words made or reference to the court or to any of its Judges' process of the to the course of justice or to the Courts. His criticisn was honest criticisn on a natter of public inportance and there was nothing of in his conduct which cane within the definition of Court conten|t "'

whether in a As the issues raised are of vital importance, criticise the court matter which is sub-judice, it is open to bY litigants and lawYers proceedings to affect the Public opinion )t 5

and protection of various other rights of the I'itigants are also involved; what are the rights of the litigants and what may amount .. .+ to interference in the course of administration of justice. In view of the aforesaid decision and facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to hear the matter. As such, we issue notice to the respondent Mr. Prashant Bhushan, who is present in Court, accepts notice'

He has prayed for three weeks' time to reply to the petitions' , Rejoinder affidavit, if of,Y, be filed within one week thereafter. List the matter on 07.03.2019.

( JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

i

tnue c.op5/

i i..'

; l

i Sruuorvn,E- Az ,:)

Interim cBI chief illegal, call panel to select new Director: Kharge writes to PM I India. .. Page I of 5

Interim CBI chief illegal, call panel to select new

Director: Kharge writes to PM

The scathing two-page note raises serious questions of propriety, on the record and how events were conducted to ensure the ouster of iormer CBI Director AlokVerma. ,l

l! \t .*/

at Parliamentfl House in eWNarendra Modi and Mallikarjun Kharge Prime Minister New Delhi. (Express File Photo: Anil Sharma)

selection Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, the sole dissenting voice in the high-po!rered ComnritteethatdecidedtooustAlokVermaascBlDirectorovercorruptioncharges,has vigilance asked Prime Minister Narend)'a luocli to make public the findings of the central minutes of the commission (cVC) and Justice A K Patnaik's rePort on verma as well as the January 10 meeting.

05-02-2019 https://indianexpress.comiarticle/india/release-cvc-repon-on-alok-verma-minutes-of-jan e\

Interim cBI chief illegal, call panel to select new Director: Kharge writes to PM I India.. . Page 2 of 5

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Kharge has said this should be done "so the public can draw its own conclusions in this matter".

Calling the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim Director of the agency "illeg?I",. Kharge has asked for immediate convening ofthe selection committee to appoint a new cBI Director without further delay.

The selection committee is headed by Prime Minister and comprises Leader of Opposition and the chiefJustice of India or a iudge nominated by him - Justice A K sikri had attended the January 1o meeting.

The two-page Ietter raises serious questions on propriety, documents placed on record and the conduct of proceedings in the committee to ensure the ouster of verma. Kharge said that the committee ,,chose to take a decision based on a report that now stands disov.ned by Justice Patnaik who was asked by the Supreme Court to monitor the CVC'S enquiry"'

05-02-2019 https://indianexpress.com/article/inclia./release-cvc-report'on-alok'verma-minutes-of'jan ' t{ lnterim CBI chief illegal, call panel to select new Director: Klarge writes to PM I India... Page 3 of5

"-\, .-t{llrlllAruud xH^RGE (H^tf,ra ta ' radEt or rriL'^ltiI eusu( r(coul{I5 tour rtlt (,)fi ,^iu ttlottOl 68rt5 rAtI ffi r.Exl r{oLll!

nr|.P,,J's,\r&,lr inrr 'q'c'(dlo

r lJiru.r'ii,,ILrrr,. 1!rir\trl\li,\.rfrri.\llri'']lLarh'('VI''rli{Irrrr RJri'!.1) n'l'r'l ,Pri [\ )rur [uJ sli!' t]! i'r!rxr[ rulJ nn lq[ ]$ lll19 rL' lrl( r.d., {{'.' Lrr lll lr'$r"

t r, r,,rc rk ({srirt$ ln:r rt0!&l\ : : l\ion{ llli.b.t Lrl n rh.,hqlto "l $ . nI6, hr\ ' lL{, i ti J.,c r' ^:\' I .* .'i' t f',f ir$ oralru..l r$rrt! k -r{lJr 1L!{\ IrL,(r ' .-*', *., r.. r - r rcr.'ru: '-* ,.e+NJ bt ( j.ii!]n a i'.n(, r sL,\ $ r trlf\ r1r \:F.n,. n!. [, r:Jn 1.,t rlxl \( ll{ i{J r |!! -.,.1. . r1\rLr\! il'J1 ;Lrltr. i" rtJL ir\ s,l lr)(r *rt o0.\!.l!r !! 11 .f,Nfnrxr rir 1\. \!'riJ nNJ"*hJrl'cr'rt !r)\ !r^ki lt rB lilll srrJ )ri trnL{N", ,r.n t.r,,' lr. rrl,t .hJn..'

I \hn h!$< .mw'ros(nl h.r. b+n rdr,ltrt Lrr qm'rc. h{ld d.sdC t -,ud 'l '*F{$!) crl, x trr (Ibn nl rh. aV(, rL rF{t df /!!1.! P.Xrit. &r $n $s!l sNr !'(nu In tur&..\L.d Jr.r rr uir djfilu! dr !.td! ^ro\ . \ +!'rur(. !i,!r., a, n,.{ :(nrr Gjrr!. !r\r. nr iir 1 \1, r,\r I rihtli,i n;j runarr\ lh,urJ,rir., ; riii\(r'n!r-,l),rIr!Ftr1t(f.!dJlir $rglsrt6n] h{utrr!o,.rrr.tr $,iln\r! \{l' \ {r,lr.i{,1rnlrt,tt\'nix\rrn !rrr,l

t, ir tr vrli hrtr lxr rl( .!uri0!r.lr\c lrl'qtr r,1 rrk (a^.n Brt iE Jtr.lll\ BFruEt lor ..b.nj J..t mhffr r. rrr ,ulh,rO IEL rr.r tur r r rE_r(siEnr .a J J nd o(n trk I **{_0,!.r"t}r ltn'o'${ srvt A.l-{ v.sB 1,, ,. r$t\,TgJ'1"r,6 olrl.rJ .'+y ui lE{n l,/H,r ro *r.E ',t'. .'!ttl6Pfi,4r,I "y? 'f$F l .J i - I I *\. , i ',. -' ,, l|r-(hrssn n! t.nu rD h( y.ffid & sndrna &n n I r.fiin* llD {l {f$l,fi& t*l.lf.1,O.i.,l,.ir,.tii9",t doi'i,, "l, ru rrdirr.!1. sili r. rl lxi t,r lirrc.! s*a rnri ru ruFrrn-r.n"., ^]4vq'r,r. 1 :._ I. TleriinH !f u\ Srqqi. F,It+4,mrrlr.rppop,rr.r' n, Cllr r.l! u.,$ ;il6*i xr.i,x rtr t*t64*i'otrtrlxnr:irou t"r.. rrud.t'mr. ^!r

Btol.t Ol, T.Llrr: 0lt'UOtrlti tti]lr306a;lJr?)04r * ot 7l.:rrri! '

Kharge writes to PM Modi

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/relcase-cvc-Iepon-on-alok-verma-minutes'of-jan.. 05-02-2019 eb

page Interim CBI chief illegal, call panel to select new Director: Kharge writes to PM I India. .. 4 of 5

, -lLriAP-1u^ r r, 4rlsrr r' r. ^-r,.^Rul +=tl:,{l

, ('.j rrilll,r r, \i,i i!1,r r ,,i t.)r .t.t ,\,1 I fi nm.,., !i. lrul.brr b) dx.Gn! . llt ,ntur.l nt \h.i \'nflr.n tqt JD !Ol9 \$ n dc rid$ul follorhf .,rtx, ^lol dtr. ll(( ol hs d ,rr( prsr,r{.! of nllual iu!,.e. J ti.r!t ofrss.h{.,id$.c1rn,JrG{ . r..d.EJ o. !.ldf.fdE orrr,.,xon ls \s , {sni}(nnr ritlt,6j l, 0E ( ,r!nrn,.Dt t Ltul,l. r( rn( b irr ,.-nr rq nr rr,.Jfirn ft,, d { tntcnn, t)rrHtDr |rE :1::*: 11..",_*^, lpFxnhor urm rnknn, rlrfl, l! pq(l,!r dir lr, ktrnt !\'{ .t r\f t)S,rt r{, ,1. rs dE. {rh bBn tud( $rrho!( ld^ulury tlr: Ixk r,0 (.qnrrl* lu Ih((iordffi.ri k rEt h hI. nlr. l+ r, nud 6 .prrrr., u tr.nD llcsk . .,n hft! ors rrhd ptsd ldf ri. iltttrd6Dnc,. rlr rolh r& Ir+ T(lnai,\^,r\Ir.nrlmr,,, i,(.nn l).rn,, r,,I\.Brt rr}J rtr,.c \rrrh\ r \r .,i r 1,1,.,1rrr t)\pl t,

II IL 8&rlr o, atr Is.rMlcd u rir ,r&d rtr.l. dlc n ,, cBt

a 7 nrr,:,,r) .f dr F., |.r In\t\r,{oii. !'tcnar of (! .o!0t& t! rq\(tuIt rn .14{ irn I }.oi I h. Dspt. .\d r\., d.L, roltd f!n]\t, c.utr rEi lhc cEdibiJity olI!r ill'orurr6

,lrd ,i!.6a,r ta.dt ! ro^ bk e,,6. Mtuk,3t bdr.r:ror l.r; M.,1n *rr.h

Kharge writes to PM Modi

"The removal of AIok Verma on loth Jan 2019 was made without following either due pro- cess of Law or the principles of natural justice," Kharge wrote in his two-page letter, adding that "a committee that consists of senior representatives of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary should not take a decision merely on a report prepared by an outside agency, how- soever competent without vetting that report and applying its own mind".

https://indianexpress.com,/article/india,/release-cvc-report-on-alok-verma-minutes-of-jan. .. 05'02'2019

e? lnterimCBlchiefillegal,callpaneltoSelectnewDirectol:KlrargewritestoPMIIndia..'Page5of5

something and in a tearing hurry to dispose a "The Government seems to be worried about manfromhisoffice,thatanirrationa]decisionwastakentotransferShriAlokVermaasDG Fire Services even after his superannuation," he said'

h hi ontheaDDointmentofRao,thecongressleadersaidthat..theGovernmentseemstohave made up its mind on appointing an lnterim Director, and hence this was nevel'placed before the selection meeting in the loth Jan 2o19 meeting' The appointment of an Interim Director is illegal and against section 4A(1) and 4A(3) of the DSPE Act." Rao',s appointment was also eISl.lcl-ElgdjDlhe&Dreme Court on Monday by NGO Common Cause'

,,The actions of the Governmenf in this matter indicate that it is scared of having the cBI

,headed by an independent Director," Kharge said'

The Iltdian Express accessed the 5?-page cvc report and found it either ambivalent about, or dismissive of, most of the 10 allegations made by cBI special Director Rakesh Asthana against his erstwhile boss, verma.

It completely dismissed three allegations made by Asthana against verma, was silent on one part dis- allegation, could not look into another due to paucity of time, while one had one missed while it said the other "part of the allegation requires further investigation".

In one allegation, the report came to a finding that "disciPlinary and other actions"were needed for one part while dismissing the other part as "not substantiated"'

Also d: Govt did 't share ]ust cc Patnaik's reDort. savs Kharee

asked the only one allegation was found as "substantiated" by the cvc report, which also novo (from supreme court to order a criminal investigation in another, and asked for a de the beginning) investigation by another branch of the CBI into a third charge'

judge who was asked by the Supreme Court to ,ustice Patnaik, the retired Supreme Court was "no er.ide cc of cor- supervise the CVC enquiry, had told The lndian Express that there ruption" against Verma, and "what the CVC says cannot be the final word"'

enquiry was held "There was no evidence against Verma regarding corruPtion' The entire my report that none of on (CBI Special Director Rakesh) Asthana's complaint' I have said in the findings in the CVC'S report are mine," he said'

05-02-2019 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/release-cvc-report-on-alok-verma-minutes-of-jan' tra,e jog$/ Is AlxgruRg- Ag

tY 2, 2019

T ointment of interim CBI I {. chief hadpanel's rod: Centre

SC seelagovt 'Govt. to r appeam j , have misled couttl resp0nse0n

, nveetsBhushan I trarsfers

[AIA0oPAI I {RIHNADAS i ucel comnsporiortu i NEW DELHI :NIWDEI,HI The Centre on FddaY m. TheSupeme Court on formed the SuPtene Court hiday ordered the thatthe M'powercommit govenment to ropond to tee! consent had been ob a petition made byA.K. uined prior to the govem' TheCBlhedquartersinNewDethi' Bassi, aCBI officer who ment\ appinnnmt of M. uastheprobe head il a Leader and ment of having commined , Nagesurua lao as interirn with 0pposition conuption cue againtl committee "contempt of cout', CBI Dilector. hi$.power fomer CBI Dilectol (HPC) Mallikarjun "The hi$ commit member, Power , nakesh,csthana,again$ who "conflrmed' No decision on CBI chief te had inded given Pemis' Khuge, of the PM.led hisba*'to'backnansfer committee had ta' The meeting i sion for the aPPoinment of that the on Friday to from New Delhito Port ken no such decision to selection Panel the intuim CBI Direcor,' At' and next CBI chief , Blailin the Andamur Rao asinterim choose the torney{eneral I(Kvenugo rcappoint Mr. was incondusive afterCon' i Nicobulslands' palsubnittted. CBlDiredot, Mallikuiun AQl.ledBendrasked govemment appeals gess leader However, latet in the day, "The the Cenue to the goverunutt t0 misled the coutt and huge asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, to luve ofeli$ble oftc I respondwithin sixweek PrePue alist for petitioner NG0Common PerhaPs submittedfabriut' tire allegations of HIC meet' ers with impeccable sen'lce on Cause and activist Aniali ed minutes of the I{t' wrote on rccord. The Panelis likelyto i nepotisrnraisedby Bhudwaj, trleeted that he ing,'Nlr. Bhushan

(rrue COPU Axlexugi- A I &1 _ Lllc )sLu,rs ./.,- .,. '--_ "__" _ AloK vernld luldlE! JUJ!''-_ '- pick the new tee had removed did rh days on Friday to backsound in[omauon, flcluo- rhe of director ovet frorn Post exPen- sa) Cll chief. dere- ine ditails of Greer and bYPn' charges ofcomrPtion and workl According to a rePort enie. ofthe c,rndidates on the list licuon oidutY in a 2-1 declslon' IPS officersJaveed Ahnted' Sources has"p sonior dissent ulaced before the Panel Kharge had exPressed be sut Raini lGnt Misn, S S Deswrland the government had then- removal' iaid to be over Verma's said tl ;, Shivanand lha are said list containing names ol Rao has been nlacecla for the M Nageswara among the fronmrnners eround 80officers with no back- workingas interim CBI director DOsL ground inforination about the rePort also since then. The agencY candidates According to the PII rePort' quoted a senior govemment uY-

a t/ SC says unhaPPY over interlm director arrangement for CBI t InterimCBl TheJusdce was refemng to of the ir director theJanuarY B decision EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE bench, headed bY il Nageshwar apex coult NE\^/ DELHI, FEBRUARYI of india RanJan Rao ChiefJustice c the I Cogoi, which set aside on Friday TllE SUPREME Court odober 23, 2018 orders ofthe I leasure over ', expresed its disp gove rnment and the Central I VenugoPal tried to explain the interim a[angement forthe Courmission divesting created bythe clash Vi$lance 1 CBI chief and the siuation 'Sensitive Post'' of Verma of his powers. be&veen fotmer Director Alok quesnoned whY the Cenffe had The bench added, a Verma and his number two' a legular director be ad hoc' not appoinEd Director should not 0 Director Rakesh fu thana' Special okay. But till now. Seven days, ten days is wondered whY p ustices Aru But the bench A bench of J it can'tbe like this." thegove rnment had not started Mishra and Navin Sinha asked Meanwhile, the Centre tn' r' ofselecting a new heanng a the exerclse the Cenne this while formed the apex cout $Et itlud stating ttrat'!ou knew Common Quse' Director, ol a-rugn- oetinon bY NGO would re- taken the Permission ol very well the Person lhalenging the aPPoinunent nowered commi$ee headed DY tire soon' Rao u the mtenttt Narendra Modt M }hgEshwu that the frime Minis:er The AG Pornted out director ofthe CBl. m aoooint Rao as rheCBIiDenm had subsequentlY said the Pst- rnatter the Ju$ice Mishra ex couft. But diriitor - Petidon .bY an ap- reached the aP ing did not amount to Common Guse had contended Mishra countered this pointme nt and told Attorney Justice that the consent of the commt- nd said the court had decided a not hken lor GeneralK Kvenugopalthat'You 8, and tee was aPParendY t he matter onJanuary aPpointed a CIll slrould have that' thepo$ing. thele was t ime even after Duector in the intenegnum'. .?

F DFI.H iorrtce OF TI{E Ef\ rtlachPc accPtq nnvT nFucto

@e oPu