Supreme Court imposed Rs 1 fine on activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan – Burning Issues – Free PDF download

SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT

• On August 14, The Supreme Court rejected all arguments of Prashant Bhushan. Court said the tweets were based on distorted facts and amounted to “criminal contempt” and held activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of “criminal contempt”. Supreme Court said that it would hear arguments on the quantum of sentencing on August 20.

• On August 20, SC refused Bhushan’s plea to defer the hearing on his sentence till his review petition against conviction for criminal contempt is filed and decided. SC gave Mr. Bhushan time till August 24 to reconsider his defiant statement and submit an “unconditional apology,
• if he so desires”.

• SC DEMANDED APOLOGY
• Mr. Bhushan said he shall cheerfully submit to whatever punishment the court imposed on him.
• The tweets incorporated his bona fide belief.
•  It would be disrespectful on his part to apologise for something he believed in.

August 24

• SC reserved its Judgement. Bhushan in his statement had refused to offer an apology to the Supreme Court for the tweets, saying what he had expressed represented his bonafide belief which he continued to hold

August 25

•  Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan had urged the top court to show “judicial statesmanship” and not make Bhushan a “martyr” by punishing him for contempt over the tweets, after the activist-lawyer rejected fresh suggestions from the court for an apology.
• Referring to Bhushan’s statements and his refusal to apologise, the bench had told Venugopal that mistakes were committed by all but they needed to be accepted, but Bhushan was not willing to accept that.
• Dhavan had argued that reprimanding Bhushan like “don’t do it again” as suggested by the Attorney General will not be correct and instead a statesman-like message should be there like “Mr Bhushan though we disagree with many things, but from next time you should be more responsible”.

FINAL JUDGEMENT IN COC CASE

• “We gave several opportunities and encouragement to (Prashant Bhushan) to express regret. He not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press,”
• The Supreme Court Monday imposed a token fine of Re 1 against activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in the contempt case for his tweets against the judiciary.
• A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra asked Bhushan to deposit the fine by September 15, failing which he will attract a jail term of three months and debarment from law practice for three years.

COMING BACK TO THE JUDGEMENT

•  Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed but rights of others need to be respected, said the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari. The verdict said not only the bench had persuaded Bhushan to express regret but Attorney General K K Venugopal had also opined that it was in the fitness of thing that the contemnor should express regret.

COMING BACK TO THE JUDGEMENT

•  “His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs”, the bench further said.

WHY SUCH A SMALL PUNISHMENT?

•  “If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Rs 1 instead”, the bench said.

• At one portion of the judgment, the SC observed that it was not “not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice”.
•  “At the same time, we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence”, the bench said next.

Comment Section

•  Was the Supreme Court right in giving a small fine ?
• Should the Court have imposed a harder punishment (like Jail Term or a higher fine)
• Should the court have not imposed a punishment at all ?
• Does the imposition of punishment mean that Free speech is in danger?

Latest Burning Issues | Free PDF

Sharing is caring!