2020 contempt case: Prashant Bhushan fined Re 1 for his tweets on judiciary
The Supreme Court said the senior lawyer may be imprisoned for three months and debarred from practicing for three years if he defaulted on the payment.
The Supreme Court on Monday fined senior advocate Prashant Bhushan Re 1 in the contempt case for his tweets on the judiciary, reported Live Law. On August 25, the court had reserved its ruling after numerous arguments as Bhushan refused to apologise.
The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari pronounced the judgement. The bench said that the senior lawyer will be imprisoned for three months and will be debarred from practicing for three years if he defaults on the payment of the penalty. Bhushan was instructed to pay the fine by September 15.
Mishra cited the top court’s precedents to highlight that the in-house procedure should be approached for corruption allegations against judges. “Judges are not supposed to go to the press, their comments outside the court should not have been relied on,” Mishra said, according to Bar and Bench.
Mishra added that multiple opportunities were given to Bhushan to express regret over his remarks. “He [Bhushan] not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press,” the top court bench said, according to NDTV. “We have considered the sane advice given by the Attorney General, and have concluded that the conduct of present contemnor also needs to be taken into consideration.”
The top court said that Bhushan’s statement, in which he said that offering an apology for his constructive criticism of the judiciary would amount to the “contempt of his conscience”, was made to “influence independent judicial function”. The court noted that freedom of speech was important but rights of others must also be respected.
Bhushan, meanwhile, said that he will announce his decision to either pay the fine or face other options during a press conference at 4 pm. He also tweeted pictures of himself holding a Re 1 coin. “My lawyer and senior colleague Rajiv Dhavan contributed 1 Re immediately after the contempt judgement today which I gratefully accepted,” he wrote.
The senior lawyer was held guilty in contempt of court on August 14. The case pertains to two tweets posted by Bhushan on June 27 and June 29. In one tweet, he made a remark about an undeclared emergency and the role of the Supreme Court and last four chief justices of India. The second tweet was about Chief Justice SA Bobde trying a Harley Davidson superbike in his hometown Nagpur during the coronavirus outbreak.
In the last hearing on August 25, the top court had said it was “painful” to read Bhushan’s statements and justifications with regard to the case. “This is not the way a senior lawyer like Bhushan over 30 years of experience should behave,” Justice Arun Mishra had said.
During proceedings in the case on August 20, the top court had dismissed Bhushan’s request to adjourn the hearing on the quantum of punishment in the case and transfer it to another bench. It had instead given the senior lawyer two to three days to reconsider his remarks about the court and the CJI.
On August 19, Bhushan had moved the Supreme Court seeking to defer the next day’s proceedings to announce his punishment till a review petition was filed and considered.
In his defence, Bhushan told the Supreme Court on August 24 that his tweets were a constructive criticism of the judiciary and that retracting his statement or offering an insincere apology would amount to “contempt of my conscience”.
On August 25, the Supreme Court also referred a 2009 contempt case against Bhushan to an “appropriate bench” that will take up the matter on September 10. The case is related to Bhushan’s interview to Tehelka magazine 11 years ago in which he made allegations of corruption in the Supreme Court and said half of the previous 16 chief justices were corrupt. The contempt of court case was filed by advocate Harish Salve.
No matter what punishment it hands Bhushan, Supreme Court has come out poorly in contempt case