Prashant Bhushan

Prashant Bhushan (born 1956) is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India in Delhi and a social activist. He has been involved in many Public Interest Litigation cases and is a senior member of "Team Anna", which supports Anna Hazare in his anti-corruption campaign. He has drawn controversy over various statements, including accusing chief judges of corruption and supporting a plebiscite for Kashmir separatists.

Prashant is the son of Shanti Bhushan, who was union minister for law in the government of Morarji Desai between 1977 and 1979. Bhushan dropped out of studying mechanical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras after a semester. He then studied first economics and then philosophy of science at Princeton University but left before graduating and returned to India where he received a law degree from Allahabad University .

Career

Prashant Bhushan began practising as an advocate in the Supreme Court of India in 1983, specialising in Public Interest Litigation. His main areas of interest have been Human Rights, the Environment and ensuring that public servants are accountable. He is associated with various organisations including the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, People's Union for Civil Liberties, Committee on Judicial Accountability and Transparency International (India). As of 2012 Bhushan was the convenor of the Working Committee of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation

Bhushan has acted as an advocate for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) on several occasions. In October 1997 the Delhi High Court heard a CPIL petition over the award of contracts to Enron and Reliance Industries to develop the Panna-Mukta oilfield, and issued notices to the involved companies and government organisations. Prashant Bhushan acted as advocate for CPIL. The petition claimed an inquiry was justified on the basis of testimony that Reliance had bribed the minister of petroleum, Satish Sharma, to get the award. The CPIL won a major victory in 2003 when the Supreme Court restrained the Central government from privatising Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum without the approval of Parliament. As counsel for the CPIL, Rajinder Sachar and Bhushan argued that the only way to disinvest in the companies would be to repeal or amend the Acts by which they were nationalised in the 1970s. As a result, the government would need a majority in both houses to push through any privatisation.

Shanti and Prashant Bhushan were council for the CPIL seeking a direction from the Supreme Court that Dalits who had converted to Christianity should be entitled to the same reservation they had enjoyed as members of Scheduled Castes. The Union government said this was purely a legislative matter, but in February 2005 the Supreme Court decided to again review the constitutional issue. In February 2005 Bhushan and Anil B. Divan were counsel for CPIL seeking quashing of the CVC Act, 2003, which requires the CBI to obtain permission from the Union government before registering corruption cases against senior bureaucrats. Bhushan argued that the act violated the basic rights of citizens and was counter to the rule of law. The Supreme Court referred the question to a constitution bench of five judges.

Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition asking for the removal of Neera Yadav from office as Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh for alleged corruption. Yadav had been named in five CBI corruption cases and 23 departmental proceedings. In October 2005 the Supreme Court directed the Mulayam Singh state government to remove her from her position. Yadav managed to stall her prosecution, but in December 2006 the Supreme Court removed all obstacles to her trial The case became the first in which an IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh was convicted of corruption.

In 2006 Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition alleging that Pepsico and Coca-Cola were failing to warn the public of harmful ingredients in their beverages, and were luring young children through misleading advertising. In 2007, Bhushan filed a petition on behalf of the CPIL with the Delhi High Court to investigate whether there had been kickbacks in the 2005 Scorpene submarine deal. The High Court took a strong line with the investigating agency, saying "We feel dissatisfied with that you've done so far. If you've tried to shield someone, then we will come down very heavily on you".

Prashant Bhushan acted for the CPIL when it took the lead in filing a suit against the Government of India for irregularities in a major award of spectrum for 2G mobile telephones. The CPIL petition alleged that the government had lost $15.53 billion by issuing spectrum in 2008 based on 2001 prices, and by not following a competitive bidding process. In September 2011 Bhushan presented evidence that appeared to disprove the claim by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that Dayanidhi Maran, the former telecom minister, had not applied undue pressure to the owner of Aircel to sell to the Maxis group of Malaysia. Bhushan said the CBI's investigation had been "less than honest". In January 2012 Bhushan questioned why the CBI had failed to lay charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against companies such as Essar Group and Loop Mobile despite strong evidence against them. In February 2012 the Supreme Court declared the allocation of spectrum had been illegal.

Team Anna

On 30 January 2011 there were "India against Corruption" marches across the country to demand a strong Independent Commission Against Corruption by passing the Jan Lokpal Bill for independent oversight of politicians and bureaucrats. Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti Bhushan were among the marchers in Delhi. Others prominent protesters included Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Agnivesh, Maulana Mahmood Madani, Vincent Conçessao, Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander. At another anti-corruption rally on 26 February 2011 the activist Anna Hazare said he would start an indefinite fast on 5 April unless decisive action was taken on the Lokpal Bill. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited Hazare, Swami Agnivesh, Prashant and Shanti Bhushan and Kiran Bedi to meet with him on 7 March. Anna Hazare nominated Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti as civil society members of the joint committee constituted in April 2011 to draft the Lokpal Bill. Other civil society members were Hazare himself, Karnataka Lokayukta (ombudsman) N. Santosh Hegde and Arvind Kejriwal. All these members decided to declare their assets.

In May 2011 Bhushan said "The basic idea of an empowered Lokpal is that it will have full autonomy, independence from the government, power to investigate complaints of corruption and prosecute all public servants, among other. This principle is non-negotiable". He said that only the details were open for discussion. The Team Anna "Jan Lokpal Bill" had eleven members accountable to the Supreme Court, and supervised by complaint authorities. The Central Bureau of Investigation anti-corruption unit would report to the Jan Lokpal, thus maintaining independence from the government in investigations. Later in May Bhushan and fellow civil-society member Arvind Kejriwal said the government was breaking its word by saying the Lokpal should not be able to investigate the Prime Minister. The government was also against letting the Lokpal investigate senior judges, defence services and the conduct of MPs within parliament. The only scope for Lokpal investigations would be corruption by MPs outside parliament, and a small number of senior civil servants. At this point a breakdown in the talks seemed inevitable.

In June 2011 Bhushan pointed out that key proposals made by Team Anna had been omitted from the latest government draft. These included the power to tap telephones and to recommend that public authorities change their work practices to make corruption less likely and to prevent victimisation of whistle blowers. Lokpal should also be able to recommend cancellation of contracts and blacklisting of firms or people involved in corrupt practices. The CBI anti-corruption wing should come under Lokpal and be independent of the central government.

That month Baba Ramdev began an "indefinite fast against corruption". Bhushan criticised Ramdev's decision to share his platform with leaders from the Hindutva organisations Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

On 4 August 2011 the government's version of the Lokpal bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha. Bhushan said the government's draft should be called the "Promotion of Corruption Bill 2011" or the "Protection of Corrupt Public Servants Bill 2011". He said the bill was designed to protect the corrupt and to deter complaints. On 10 August Bhushan said Team Anna demanded that this version be withdrawn. He said: "We are going to put forward our views, that how the Bill prepared by the government will encourage corruption instead of curbing it and will provide protection to the corrupt officials".

Following Hazare's detention for staging a demonstration, on 16 August 2011 Prashant Bhushan said that peaceful protests had been arranged across the country. He said the Delhi police had detained Hazare at the bidding of the cabinet: "There is no freedom for Delhi Police. It has become a puppet, an ornament in the hands of Central government". Later that month Anna Hazare began a hunger strike. Bhushan said the government could not postpone passing a proper Lokpal bill indefinitely. He reported that Anna Hazare had said he would fast until Hazare's draft Lokpal bill was introduced into parliament and passed, or that he would fast until death. On 28 August Hazare called off his fast. Two days later it was announced that Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan would have an informal meeting with Abhishek Singhvi, chairman of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice to discuss how the committee would proceed in reconciling the various draft anti-corruption laws, which could take several months.

In September 2011 Bhushan criticised the proposed National Judicial Oversight Committee. He said that inclusion of "brother judges" in the committee would prevent it acting impartially, and including two MPs in the committee would compromise judicial independence. Team Anna had proposed a 5-person committee independent of both the executive and the judiciary. In January 2012 Bhushan said in a press conference that Team Anna was working on a draft amendment to the constitution that would ensure the people had more say in the framing of laws. Bhushan and Hazare both opposed the Lokpal bill that was eventually introduced by the government, saying in February 2012 that it was very weak.

Other cases

Bhushan has acted on a wide variety of high-profile cases. In 1992 he initiated a petition in the high court of Karantaka alleging bribery in the Mangalore Power Company project. After seven years, this was eventually dismissed. In 1998, as counsel for Arun Kumar Aggarwal, he initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Union Government of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for retaining SEBI chairman D.R. Mehta after his three-year term had expired. Prashant Bhushan and Nitya Ramakrishnan were appointed counsel for the four people accused of the attack on parliament on 13 December 2001. The four were found guilty on 16 December 2002.

Bhushan assisted the Narmada Bachao Andolan activists opposed to the Sardar Sarovar Dam. After six years of hearings, in October 2000 the Supreme court ruled to allow the massive project to recommence. Bhushan criticised the decision for having been made "without any evidence of the facts [being presented] before the judges". Bhushan defended novellist Arundhati Roy when she was charged with contempt of court for publicly criticising judges in the dam hearings. In March 2002 she was sentenced to one day in jail. According to Bhushan the judges were "just affronted by the fact that somebody has dared to criticise them". In April 2002 a constitutional bench ruled that the decisions of the Supreme Court could not be assailed, but someone who felt they had suffered a gross miscarriage' of justice could move a "curative" petition. Bhushan described this ruling as retrograde – a step backward.

In 2003 Bhushan filed a petition against Akhand Pratap Singh, chief secretary of the Uttar Pradesh state government, challenging a decision to extend his tenure. The petition alleged that Singh had been voted "most corrupt officer" in 1997 by the UP IAS Officers Association. The state government had ignored requests to allow a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into graft charges. In November 2003 the petition was refused. In July 2005 Bhushan was a member of an independent panel investigating a possible scam involving a company that made a huge profit buying and reselling Mumbai Airport Centaur Hotel and the son in law of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In September 2005 Bhushan represented Common Cause, a social organisation, seeking to reopen the petrol-pump scam case against Satish Sharma, a former minister of petroleum in the Union government.

In February 2006, as counsel for Lok Sevak Sangh, Bhushan submitted to the Supreme Court that the MP Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) might not be constitutionally valid. A TV channel had recently aired video of a sting in which it appeared that some MPs had taken bribes under the scheme. Bhushan said none of the normal controls were being applied, and the scheme was breeding corruption.

Some other widely discussed cases in which he has appeared relate to the Bofors scandal, disposal of the Dabhol Power Station after the Enron bankruptcy, Doon Valley Mining litigation, Right to Information Act and Mauritius Double Taxation. He appeared in a controversial case in which candidates for election to public office were required to disclose their assets and any criminal convictions.