‘8 out of 16 former CJIs corrupt’ | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 24, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

‘8 out of 16 former CJIs corrupt’

delhi Updated: Sep 17, 2010 01:36 IST

Former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan has moved the Supreme Court seeking to become a party to a contempt case against his advocate son, Prashant Bhushan.

Contempt proceedings have been initiated against Prashant for allegedly stating in an

interview to a magazine that Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia had committed judicial impropriety by being a member of the

forest bench hearing the Sterlite Industries matter.

Justice Kapadia apparently heard the matter related to the company while he was the second senior-most judge in the apex court.

In his intervention application, the former minister has alleged that eight out of the 16 former Chief Justices of India were “definitely corrupt”.

Bhushan vouched for the integrity of just six CJIs. He, however, added that no opinion could be expressed regarding two remaining judges.

The former minister has given a list of 16 CJIs. He gave details of the identity of the

“definitely corrupt,” “definitely honest” and two other judges in a sealed cover for the perusal of judges hearing a contempt petition against Prashant Bhushan.

Shanti Bhushan said it would be a “great honour” to spend time in jail “for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.” His application read: “... the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt.

He further claimed in an affidavit that two former CJIs had personally told him that their immediate predecessors and immediate successors were corrupt judges. The senior counsel said that there was a time when it was “almost impossible even to think that a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt.”

However, he said that honest judges too were becoming the victim of this public perception since no institution was taking steps to deal with corruption in judiciary.