E-Paper
Bhushan files review plea in contempt case
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Friday sought a review of the Supreme Court order asking him to deposit a fine of Re 1 in a contempt case for his two tweets against the
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Friday sought a review of the Supreme Court order asking him to deposit a fine of Re 1 in a contempt case for his two tweets against the judiciary.
This is Bhushan’s second review petition in the case.
On August 31, the Supreme Court had directed Bhushan to pay a fine of Re 1 by September 15, failing which he would face three months of imprisonment and debarment from practicing before the Supreme Court for a period of three years. Bhushan paid the fine on September 14 and filed a review petition challenging the order convicting him of contempt passed by the Court on August 14.
In his petition, Bhushan has raised 12 technical grounds urging the court to set aside the verdict. He has said that at no point of time, the three-judge bench indicated to him their intention to debar him from practice. He said that debarring a person from practice was a drastic step to be considered as a “last resort” by the Court.
Bhushan further said that his reply was not considered by the bench before passing its order and he was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. Moreover, he said that the punishment in default could never be in excess of what was prescribed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 12 provides for imprisonment up to six months or fine up to Rs 2000 or both.
Bhushan sought permission of the top court to allow him to make oral arguments on his review petition as the practice normally is to decide the review petition in chambers without affording an open court hearing to the petitioner. Bhushan also raised constitutional issues saying that the bench went by his supplementary statement issued to the press which was not part of the contempt proceeding.
“The judgment limits criticism to individual cases and puts all criticism of the institution or actions beyond the scope of the right. The above approach to Article 19(1)(a) completely disregards the principle that dissent and the free and fearless exchange of views concerning all matters pertaining to the state of Indian democracy are an especially central purpose of the right. The strength of this proposition is evidently compounded when these matters touch on the judiciary as an institution, in view of its unelected and counter-majoritarian position,” Bhushan’s petition said.
In two tweets published by Bhushan in June this year, the lawyer blamed the CJI for keeping the Court closed during the Covid-19 lockdown and accused the judiciary for destroying democracy without a formal Emergency over the past few years.
The Court while considering these tweets went on to hold Bhushan guilty of contempt. Further, the Court said that Bhushan “aggravated” the contempt against him by further making “reckless” allegations against past judges and refused to either withdraw the same or offer regret.
The judgment had said, “It is not expected of a person who is a part of the system of administration of justice and who owes a duty to the said system, to make such tweets which are capable of shaking the confidence of general public and further making wild allegations in the affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the said institution. Such an act by responsible person who is part of this system cannot be ignored or overlooked.”
