 "Prashant Bhushan files plea for Justice Kelkar's recusal, SC irked")
In a high-voltage hearing, the Supreme Court on Friday ticked off activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan calling as "unreasonable" and the "most unfair" his plea seeking recusal of Justice J S Khehar from hearing a PIL that levels bribery allegations against politicians including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The petition seeks an SIT probe into alleged recovery of documents in income tax raids on two business houses in 2012 when Modi was Gujarat Chief Minister.
The apex court was irked as advocate Bhushan, appearing for an NGO, sought Justice Khehar's recusal saying that the file, designating him as next CJI, was pending approval with the executive, headed by the Prime Minister.
"It is my duty as an officer of the court to point out that Your Lordship's (Justice Khehar) file for elevation as CJI is pending before the government...," he told the bench headed by Justice Khehar.
Taking umbrage, Justice Khehar and Justice Arun Mishra told the activist that he was doubting a Constitutional functionary and "this is not done".
"You (Bhushan) are talking about the highest court of the country. Do you think we can succumb to any pressure? If you had any problem, you should have pointed out. It is very, very unfair. You are talking about the highest court. You are doubting a Constitutional functionary," the bench said.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre, reacted sharply to Bhushan's submissions and said, "This is the cheapest tactics and has never been done in the Supreme Court. This is more unfortunate as has been done in a PIL. I am pained."
Also Read
The PIL has been heard on four dates by the bench headed by Justice Khehar which on Wednesday had questioned the NGO and Bhushan whether aspersions could be cast against the prime minister without placing "sufficient", "firm" and "clear" materials.
It had also said that the PIL was based on "zero material" and was only making "insinuations".
However, Bhushan, while seeking Justice Khehar's recusal, said, "Though I do not have any doubt (about him), it is my duty, a painful duty, as an officer of the court (to say) that this matter be heard by some other bench or on reopening (after winter vacation)."
The bench said, "You (Bhushan) had no difficulty then. Why should you say all this. It is most unfair. You appeared twice, thrice before us, but you did not say anything. Today you are saying things. We heard this first time."
"This is not done. This is serious...We cannot be held to ransom. This is sheer contempt," the bench said.
The name of Justice Khehar, the senior most judge, has been recommended by outgoing CJI T S Thakur, demitting office on January 3, next year, as his successor.
He has faith in the bench, Bhushan said, adding that many people in the country should not get a "wrong" impression about this institution and, as an officer of the court, his job was to stop all kinds of rumours and apprehensions.
"If you had the confidence (in the bench), you should not have said all this. It is very unfair, not fair," the bench said.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the Centre, strongly opposed Bhushan's plea saying,"a very wrong precedent is being set."
At the outset, Bhushan, who was earlier asked to come up with sufficient materials, said, "as asked, we have burnt the midnight oil, we have prepared at short note. I have gone through two volumes of the Birla files and have not been able to go through two other volumes. I am renewing my request for short adjournment."
The bench said that all relevant material should have been filed with the petition at the threshold.
"The thing is that you were in a tearing hurry...You have filed the petition raising very serious allegations in a non-serious manner...Why should we do that (on allowing further time to bring better evidence)," it said.
"You (Bhushan) should have brought (at the outset) what you had. Now what are you trying to do. It is unreasonable. You should have brought some best materials. You were supposed to bring materials to the hilt and would have said this is it", the bench said.
Bhushan then sought either recusal of Justice Khehar or the listing of the PIL, filed by NGO 'Common Cause', for hearing in January next year. The submission infuriated the bench.
The bench then suggested two solutions to AG and Bhushan saying either the matter be sent to the CJI for allocating it to some other bench or let it be heard in January after winter vacation.
"I will agree with the second option," Rohatgi said.
Bhushan also agreed to it and said he will file a detailed affidavit in the matter. The apex court then deferred the hearing to January 11, 2017.