Yet another Supreme Court judge Justice S H Kapadia withdrew from a case related to London-based company Vedanta Limited as he has shares in its sister concern Sterilite Company Limited.

Justice Kapadia is the third judge, who has recused himself from hearing a case in the company in which he has shares, is one of the parties.

On Wednesday, Justice R V Raveendran had recused himself from the bench hearing the natural gas dispute between the Ambani brothers on the grounds of clash of interest. BR>
Justice Markandey Katju also withdrew from the case relating to Mukesh Ambani Company RIL and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), a PSU, on the ground that his wife had shares in RIL.

Earlier, Justice Kapadia was reportedly maligned in a section of media for hearing the case in which Vedanta Limited is one of the parties.

Justice Kapadia has, however, disclosed the fact that he was one of the shareholders in the company on the first day of hearing and had offered to withdraw from the case in case any of the parties had any objection to his continuation on the bench.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan today issued contempt of court notice to a Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan for giving an interview in Tehelka news magazine maligning the reputation of the Judiciary as a whole and that of a former Chief Justice of India.

Earlier, senior counsel had objected to the remarks made by Mr Bhushan against the judges, including Justice Kapadia, and had urged the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Mr Bhushan as such conduct by a reputed advocate would send wrong signals to the people regarding the reputation of the Judiciary as a whole.

The apex court had permitted him to file a contempt of court petition.

Mr Bhushan, along with other eminent lawyers, including his father and former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan and other eminent lawyers like Mr Ram Jethmalani, F S Nariman and Anil Diwan, has been spearheading a campaign against corruption in the Judiciary.

The committee for judicial accountability in which Mr Bhushan is one of the office-bearers had exposed the allegations of land grab and corruption against Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran whose elevation to the Supreme Court has been put on hold as a reult of the sustained campaign launched by the committee and the committee was also in the forefront demanding the judges of superior courts should make their assets public like other public servants.

All 21 judges of Supreme Court, except Justice H S Bedi have put the details of their assets on the Supreme Court website.

CJI Balakrishnan, who had been resisting the demand, also revealed his assets.

Jutice Bedi is yet to make public his assets.

The judges have, however, made it clear that the disclosure was voluntary in terms of Supreme court resolutions of 1997 and they were not legally bound to declare their assets.

UNI