The two tweets in question were an expression of his beliefs, and open criticism is required in a healthy democracy, Bhushan reiterated.
He was “pained” that the bench had held him, senior advocate and activist Prashant Bhushan on Thursday told the Supreme Court. The two tweets in question were an expression of his beliefs, and open criticism is required in a healthy democracy, Bhushan reiterated.
Bhushan was held guilty of contempt of court on August 14 over his two tweets by the bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, and Krishna Murari. One of those tweets was about Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde riding a motorcycle without a mask during the pandemic, while the other tweet criticized the SC over the perceived deterioration in India’s democracy and the role of former CJIs in letting that happen.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave represented Bhushan in this case. He said today that the sentencing should be postponed until he has filed a review and it has been decided on. The court rejected Dave’s contention but Justice Mishra said no punishment would begin before the review process was complete. “We will be fair to you, whether or not you are fair to us,” Justice Mishra said.
Justice Arun Mishra offered to give Bhushan a few days’ time so he could “rethink his statement” after Bhushan’s lawyers had argued in his defence, holding that his tweets should not be regarded as contempt at all. Bhushan’s pro bono work was admirable and would work in his favour during sentencing, the judge added.
“I don’t want to reconsider the statement. As regards giving time, I don’t think it will serve any useful purpose,” Bhushan said refusing the offer for more time. He also stressed that his remarks were “well-considered” and he was unlikely to change them in a few days.
However, the bench decided to give time to Bhushan to reconsider before the final verdict on sentencing. Meanwhile, Dave has been asked to complete the legal arguments today.
Prashant Bhushan’s submission in the Supreme Court:
I have gone through the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold – not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard – for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood.
I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo motu notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
