New Delhi: Attorney general K.K. Venugopal has declined consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Kapil Sibal for statements that he made last month about the Supreme Court, noting that the senior advocate’s criticism was in the larger interest of the justice delivery system.Sibal, an independent Rajya Sabha MP, on August 6 made critical statements concerning some recent verdicts of the apex court as a speaker at an event.Venugopal has said that having gone through the entirety of his speech, he finds that Sibal’s criticism of the court and the judgements was so that the court may take note of the statements in the larger interest of the justice delivery system.“It does not appear to me that the statements were intended to scandalise the court or affect the confidence of the public in the institution. I accordingly decline consent,” the top law officer said in his letter to advocate Vineet Jindal.Jindal had sought the attorney general’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Sibal for allegedly making statements “scandalising” the verdicts delivered by the apex court.As per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the nod of the attorney general or the solicitor general is a condition precedent to set the criminal contempt proceedings in motion before the apex court.What did Sibal say?Speaking at a people’s tribunal that was organised on August 6 in New Delhi on the topic “Judicial Rollback of Civil Liberties”, Sibal said some recent judgments by the Supreme Court left him with “no hope in the institution.” He was critical of the top court’s judgment dismissing the plea of Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT’s clean chit to Narendra Modi and others in the Gujarat riots and also the verdict upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which gave vast powers to the Enforcement Directorate.According to LiveLaw, he added:“A court where judges are instituted through a process of compromise; a court where there is no system to determine which case will be presided over by which bench, where the Chief Justice of India decides which matter will be dealt with by which bench and when, that court can never be independent…How can you keep trust in the Supreme Court when it upholds such laws?…If you think judges always decide in accordance with law, you are mistaken…if you think you will get relief from Supreme Court you are hugely mistaken.”But he also added, “We are not independent if our institutions remain captured. We have hope in our judiciary because there is no other option…”Why was consent denied?In his letter, Venugopal said he has examined the statements made in their entirety, “the Hindi portions have been translated for me and which run into about 30 minutes”.“The statements which pertain to loss of faith in the Supreme Court are not contemptuous on the face of it, as the import of those statements is the fact that the orders of the Supreme Court are not implemented on the ground,” he said.Venugopal said no part of these statements casts any blame or aspersion upon the court.The attorney general said the statements “relating to the critiques of certain judgements delivered by the Supreme Court would fall squarely within the purview of ‘fair comment’ which is permissible under section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, itself”.He said regarding the apex court’s judgment upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the matter is currently sub-judice as a review petition has been entertained by the top court which is pending.On the issue of allocation of cases raised by Sibal, the attorney general said, “So far as the statement related to the allocation of cases is concerned, I find that the four judges of the Supreme Court in a press conference dated January 12, 2018, expressed these same views in relation to the allocation of cases by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.”The attorney general said that under section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a judge can be held in contempt of his own court.“However, no contempt action had ever been initiated by the Supreme Court against the makers of those statements, and therefore in my opinion it would not be appropriate that action be initiated against Sibal,” he said.“Having gone through the entirety of Sibal’s speech, I find that his criticism of the court and the judgements was so that the court may take note of the statements in the larger interest of the justice delivery system,” he said.(With PTI inputs)