<p>The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the writ petition filed by journalist N Ram and others challenging the validity of the Contempt of Courts Act could not have been listed before any other bench than the one headed by Justice Arun Mishra.</p>.<p>Official sources issued a note stating since the plea in the petition by Ram and others sought to stay on the contempt proceedings against activist advocate Prashant Bhushan, it could not have been listed before any other bench.</p>.<p>The contempt petition in 2009 case, as well as 2020 Suo Motu matter, were then pending before Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>"It is a cardinal principle of law that a coordinate bench cannot stay the proceedings on ongoing cases which are pending before other similar bench. This would have created problems as one court cannot stay the proceedings of the other court having the same jurisdiction," they said.</p>.<p>In a joint plea, Ram, Arun Shourie and Bhushan himself challenged the validity of the Contempt of Court Act for stifling free speech.</p>.<p>Notably, the top court authorities have on August 8 sought a response from its Registry officials for "mistake" and "ignoring established practice and procedure" in listing the writ petition before a separate bench than the one led by Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>The matter, which was then posted before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph, was deleted.</p>.<p>The bench led by Justice Mishra had on July 22 issued a notice for Suo Motu criminal contempt proceedings to Bhushan for his two tweets made in June 27 and 29 on role of four former CJIs in "destruction of democracy" and current CJI riding on a high-end bike and shutting down the Supreme Court. This particular bench had already reserved the judgement in the contempt case.</p>.<p>On Monday, this particular bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, decided to consider from August 17 the 2009 contempt petition, rejecting Bhushan's explanation for his remark in Tehelka magazine about corruption in former CJIs.</p>.<p>The plea by Ram and others would now come up for hearing before the bench presided over by Justice Mishra on August 13.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that the writ petition filed by journalist N Ram and others challenging the validity of the Contempt of Courts Act could not have been listed before any other bench than the one headed by Justice Arun Mishra.</p>.<p>Official sources issued a note stating since the plea in the petition by Ram and others sought to stay on the contempt proceedings against activist advocate Prashant Bhushan, it could not have been listed before any other bench.</p>.<p>The contempt petition in 2009 case, as well as 2020 Suo Motu matter, were then pending before Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>"It is a cardinal principle of law that a coordinate bench cannot stay the proceedings on ongoing cases which are pending before other similar bench. This would have created problems as one court cannot stay the proceedings of the other court having the same jurisdiction," they said.</p>.<p>In a joint plea, Ram, Arun Shourie and Bhushan himself challenged the validity of the Contempt of Court Act for stifling free speech.</p>.<p>Notably, the top court authorities have on August 8 sought a response from its Registry officials for "mistake" and "ignoring established practice and procedure" in listing the writ petition before a separate bench than the one led by Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>The matter, which was then posted before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph, was deleted.</p>.<p>The bench led by Justice Mishra had on July 22 issued a notice for Suo Motu criminal contempt proceedings to Bhushan for his two tweets made in June 27 and 29 on role of four former CJIs in "destruction of democracy" and current CJI riding on a high-end bike and shutting down the Supreme Court. This particular bench had already reserved the judgement in the contempt case.</p>.<p>On Monday, this particular bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, decided to consider from August 17 the 2009 contempt petition, rejecting Bhushan's explanation for his remark in Tehelka magazine about corruption in former CJIs.</p>.<p>The plea by Ram and others would now come up for hearing before the bench presided over by Justice Mishra on August 13.</p>
