Prashant Bhushan

He is associated with various organisations including the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and Transparency International (India).[14] Krishna Iyer, a former Supreme Court judge, said that either the Bhushans should be punished for making "false charges" or an independent authority should be set up to scrutinise their allegations.[18] 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.[20] 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.[21] The same year, Bhushan also 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.[12] 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.[12] In September 2011 Bhushan presented evidence that appeared to disprove the claim by the 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.[24] 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.[26] In 2012, Bhushan filed a PIL seeking cancelation of coal block allocations by the government on the grounds that certain companies had been illegally favoured by the politicians.Bhushan also filed a PIL against illegal iron ore extraction in Goa, which led to the Supreme Court halting all the mining operations in the state.[29] Bhushan argued the Electoral Bonds case representing Association for Democratic Reforms, thereby successfully getting the scheme declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.[31] After the April 2010 Maoist attack in Dantewada, which led to the death of 76 policemen, he stated that such "retaliation" was expected because the government had declared the anti-Naxal operations as a war.[32] In April 2012 Bhushan drew criticism from Congress leaders when he refused to act as a mediator in negotiating with Maoists who were holding a District Collector hostage.[34] Along with Nitya Ramakrishnan, he was the counsel for the banned documentary 13 December, which is a reconstruction of the events that led to the attacks on Parliament, based on the chargesheet filed by the special police cell.As a result of the PIL, the Supreme Court ordered that the papers be checked by P. V. Reddi, a former SC judge and former Law Commission Chairman Justice.[43] Justice Arun Mishra, writing for the bench, held that these tweets were not just personal opinions, and that they tended to "shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary".Ganguly, Gopala Gowda, Aftab Alam, Jasti Chelameswar and Vikramjit Sen.[45] Bhushan was also supported with statements published by senior advocates and civil servants.[57] A few days after the committee began work, a CD was released that appeared to be a recording of conversation between Shanti Bhushan and Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party.The government did not want the Lokpal to have the power to investigate the Prime Minister, the higher judiciary, the defence services, the CBI and the CVC and the conduct of MPs inside Parliament.[64] Following a hunger strike by Hazare and more failed negotiations with the government representatives, a section of Team Anna activists led by Kejriwal and Bhushan decided to enter politics to pass the bill themselves.Bhushan denied the charge, calling it a "very organised and concerted attempt to smear members of the civil society in the Lokpal drafting committee with allegations".[65] In a similar accusation, the former BJP Chief Minister, Prem Kumar Dhumal, had rejected those charges, defending the grant of relaxations to the educational trust.