Your argument emotional, can't make you party: SC to Shanti Bhushan

New Delhi, July 24 The Supreme Court on Friday, during a brief hearing on a 11-year-old contempt case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan over his remarks against the apex court in an interview to Tehelka magazine, said it will not make his father and Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan a party to the case.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai and Krishna Murari said "let us start hearing the matter, as it has to be heard by one or the other bench someday or other".

Shanti Bhushan contended before the bench that he cannot argue efficiently in virtual court proceedings and since the case is of 2009, and has remained pending for 10 years, it can certainly wait till physical hearings resume.

The bench replied that many matters are being taken up through videoconferencing.

"Why can't this matter be taken up?"

Shanti Bhushan argued that his application for making him a party must be heard and decided.

Justice Mishra said that it is a suo motu issue and his argument was not legal but emotional.

Justice Mishra insisted that the argument made out of love and affection is not a legal argument.

The apex court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 4.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing then editor Tarun Tejpal of the magazine, submitted before the bench that the last hearing on the matter was in 2012 and he is yet to go through the documents in the case.

Justice Mishra replied: "But we will have to start hearing on the matter."

Sibal argued that he needed time to prepare. Justice Mishra said the court will give him enough time to prepare.

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Bhushan, said that time was required to go through the record and prepare for hearing. He pointed out that Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who appeared for Bhushan, had passed away last year.

Incidentally, the same bench had issued notice to Prashant Bhushan on July 22 in another suo motu case regarding his two tweets in connection with the higher judiciary.

( With inputs from IANS )