india

Updated: Feb 06, 2019 15:09 IST

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from lawyer Prashant Bhushan on the contempt pleas filed by attorney general KK Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets alleging that the government had misled the court about the appointment of M Nageshwar Rao as the interim director of the CBI.

A bench of justice Arun Mishra and justice Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether lawyers or anyone else can criticise the court in a sub-judice matter which would influence public opinion.

The bench also said that criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice.

“This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued,” the bench said.

Bhushan had tweeted on February 1 about the deliberations of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led selection committee tasked with appointing a new CBI director after the agency’s former chief Alok Verma was removed.

The lawyer had quoted a letter by Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge and hinted that the government may have submitted fabricated minutes of the panel’s meeting to the Supreme Court.

“I have just confirmed personally from the Leader of Opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion 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! (sic)” Bhushan had posted on Twitter.

The government’s top law official Venugopal had submitted the minutes of the committee’s January 10 meeting to a bench headed by justice Mishra in a sealed cover.

The Centre said that the tweet “willfully and deliberately” made a false statement in a case being heard by the court.

“Such an act by a counsel of making false and irresponsible allegations on a public platform, rather than raising his grievances, if any, before this honourable court, is grossly contumacious and warrants punishment by this court,” the Centre said, according to Live Law.

Bhushan was given three weeks to reply by the court, which fixed the next date of hearing on March 7.