Media trial causing great damage to the institution, says Attorney General K K Venugopal

Attorney General K K Venugopal on Tuesday said the comments made freely on print and electronic media on pending matters in an attempt to influence the judges and public perception was causing great damage to the institution.

The top law officer voiced serious concern over media trial in pending cases, while putting forth his arguments before a bench presided over by Justice A M Khanwilkar in a 2009 contempt case against advocate Prashant Bhushan.

"Today, when I watch TV, I see comments about the bail application based on statements stated to be made to police. Another trend, for example, in a case like Rafale, on the day when the bench is taking up the case, there is an article commenting about the case," he said.

Venugopal submitted before the court that the issue needs to be addressed.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, for his part, said the issue of sub-judice was already covered by the Sahara judgment by the Constitution bench (2012). He said taking up the issues will expand the cause.

Also read — Prashant Bhushan asks Supreme Court to review Re one fine in contempt case

He, however, agreed that the questions need to be refined and reformulated.

Dhavan also pointed out the petitioner has suggested 10 questions of law and the bench has framed three for adjudication.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for then editor of Tehelka magazines Tarun Tejpal, said that the problem needs to be seen in the light of the new communication systems.

Venugopal said he would discuss the questions with Dhavan and Sibal and other parties, for determination by the court.

The top court had on September 10 sought assistance from Venugopal in the contempt case, arising out of Bhushan's Tehelka magazine interview accusing half of 16 retired Chief Justices of India of corruption.

On August 31, the top court imposed a nominal fine of Re one on Bhushan as sentence after having held him guilty of suo motu criminal contempt in a separate case on August 14 for his tweets.

Among the questions framed for consideration in 2009 case are what procedure should be adopted if statements are made in public alleging corruption in sitting and retired judges.