Bhushan wrong on per se contempt

 India Today reports- 

Bhushan's legal team summarised his argument in their written submission to the apex court in four points, "Corruption in public life has a wide and expansive definition;

This is not the case. It has a narrow legal definition. I may think that a Judge who fails in his religious duty has a corrupted soul. But I may be guilty of criminal contempt if I say 'that Judge is corrupt. He is an utter scoundrel. His judgments should be disregarded by all and sundry. If we enforce the judgments of a corrupt judge, we ourselves become corrupted'.  

The factum of corruption in the judiciary has been stated in Parliamentary Committee reports on Prevention of Corruption;

This is false. A Committee report on a topic of a general type may contain examples or illustrations. It can't state the factum because there is no specific case under consideration.

Allegation of corruption per se cannot be contempt;

They can be investigated as such. There is a defence of truth if the intention is bona fide and in the public interest. But, in that case, if the allegation is made by an officer of the court it must be done through the proper channels as established by law. 

Allegations of corruption cannot be per se contempt because truth is a defense to contempt proceedings."

No. The allegation of corruption or other significant wrong-doing, save when made through proper channels, is per se contempt but a defense of truth, bona fide intention and public interest may be offered and this may be reflected in the judgment. 

By contrast the allegation that a Judge is a pussy cat is not per se contempt. Why? Because it is silly and reflects on the silliness of the person making it.  

"Without the allegations (of corruption) against a judge being documented and investigated in the manner further provided under the Judges Inquiry Act, to establish the veracity,

it is per se contempt to repeat that allegation save through such channels as have been provided by the law.

For a defence of truth to hold, that truth must have been first established by the procedures laid down by law. It is no good saying- 'I believe this truth will be established at some future point of time.'

the allegation per se cannot amount to contempt

only if they are made through such channels as the Law has established 

in so far as it would nullify the constitutional provisions and statutory procedures for impeachment of a judge on grounds of misbehavior including corruption," 

Nonsense! Suppose I hang a man I believe is guilty of a heinous 'rarest of the rare' crime. I can't say I am not guilty because the Bench would have done the same thing. On the other hand I can certainly take steps to apprise the Bench of the reasons they should hang the man. But I can't do it myself. Per se I am guilty of murder though I may have a defense of insanity.  

The Bench may well tread warily in holding influential members of the elite guilty of contempt. After all, they will soon retire and have families who may be adversely affected if the incur the wrath of the powerful. However, if the Bench fails to punish Bhushan adequately we may well ask why they sent a Dalit High Court judge, who was Tamil and rose from a humble background, to 6 months in prison. Advocate Nedumpara was given a suspended sentence of 3 months and banned from appearing before the Supreme Court for a year. Will Bhushan get off with a paltry 2000 Rs fine? If so, is it because his dad was a Minister and, till recently, he seemed to be going places politically? Is there one law for the elite, forward castes and another for those who rose up by their boot-straps? Time will tell. What has already become obvious however is that a lot of affidavits that reach the Supreme Court are devoid of any type of rationality. It is known that 'per se contempt' is undefined because it is whatever the Bench thinks it is. Bhushan thinks it is whatever he thinks it is! But Bhushan is not a Supreme Court judge! The Law specifies a channel through which corruption allegations are to be submitted for verification. Bhushan thinks any allegation made outside that channel is true till it has been shown not to be true! Imagine what would have happened if the all powerful Lok Pal (ombudsman) he was demanding had come into existence. Suppose this joker had been appointed to that post. The Law would have ceased to have any type of existence in India. We can only be grateful for Kejriwal for kicking this fool out of politics.