Lokpal Bill drafting committee co-chairman Shanti Bhushan on Monday filed a contempt petition against Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh, accusing him of “fabricating” a CD against him in an “attempt to derail” the legislation as well as the 2G spectrum case and the “Amar Singh CD” cases in the nation’s highest court.

In a related development, a lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma, filed a parallel writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s April 8 notification setting up the 10-member Lokpal Bill drafting committee co-chaired by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and Mr Shanti Bhushan, saying no one who was not a member of Parliament could be involved in legislative business.
While seeking quashing of the government notification, Mr Sharma sought a CBI inquiry into the allegations against Mr Shanti Bhushan in the CD — which his son and fellow drafting committee member Prashant Bhushan has described as “fabricated”. Mr Sharma also sought a probe into the alleged “under-valuing” of a property purchased by the Bhushans in Allahabad, resulting in the payment of a lesser amount registration fees to the Uttar Pradesh government.
Mr Shanti Bhushan, in his petition naming Mr Amar Singh as a respondent, said he was approaching the highest court as “a CD purportedly containing a completely fabricated conversation between (SP leader) Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh, which cast aspersions on the judiciary, has been circulated among the media” to derail the bill by “discrediting” members of civil society who were on the panel.
Mr Bhushan alleged this had been done with a “malicious intention” to interfere with the administration of justice and was aimed at creating an impression that a particular bench of the Supreme Court, which was seized of the 2G spectrum case and the “Amar Singh CD” case, “can be managed” through his son Prashant Bhushan, and one of the judges of the bench had even been named in the CD.
“The attempt seems to be to try and make the judge to recuse himself from the case by suggesting in the said conversation that Prashant Bhushan is on very good terms with the judge and is in a position to influence him. This is a totally false and scurrilous suggestion, (and) is a clear attempt to embarrass the judge and interfere with the administration of justice,” the petition said.
Mr Bhushan, a former Union law minister, said the bench has already reserved its verdict on Mr Prashant Bhushan’s petition for lifting the court’s ban on the publication, broadcast and telecast of the “Amar Singh CDs” and the judgment might come at any time.
In this context, Mr Shanti Bhushan mentioned Mr Amar Singh’s pre-recorded interview of April 17 to a TV channel suggesting that in the light of the CD (against Shanti Bhushan) it would “not be proper” for the judge to lift the ban on the “Amar Singh CDs”. Mr Bhushan pointed out that the CD against him became public much later than the recording of Mr Amar Singh’s interview.
“The object behind fabricating the CD is quite sinister as the attempt is apparently to derail these cases before the said bench and thus interfere with the administration of justice,” Mr Shanti Bhushan’s petition said, seeking four-fold relief from the court, including initiation of “suo moto” contempt proceedings by it against Mr Amar Singh.
The other prayers raised by Mr Bhushan include a probe by a special investigating team to determine which persons were behind the “fabrication” of the CD, to haul them before the court for contempt, and to pass any other orders that the court deemed fit in the circumstances.
Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, in his petition, alleged that Mr Shanti Bhushan and Mr Prashant Bhushan, who he claimed “have powerful political support”, should not be allowed to interfere with legislative business.
He said the bill was already pending before a “House committee” and should be dealt with in accordance with settled democratic norms — inviting suggestions from the public, as well as going by the recommendations of various commissions and legal experts.
Mr Sharma said the government had no executive power to set up such a committee to draft a bill, claiming that under the Constitution such power vests only with the President and the Lok Sabha Speaker.