The vehement submissions of activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Thursday that hearing on his sentencing in the contempt case be either deferred or transferred to other bench prompted the Supreme Court to assure him that it will be “fair” to him and the punishment will not be enforced till his review plea against the conviction is decided.
“In the event we decide to impose any kind of punishment, we assure you that it would not be in operation till the review is decided. Don't worry, we will be fair to you, even if you are not fair to us,” a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari said.
The top court granted time till August 24 to Bhushan to reconsider his “defiant statement” refusing to apologise for his contemptuous tweets and tender an unconditional apology.
Bhushan was held guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary on August 14 and faces simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or with both as punishment.
“I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be my bonafide belief.
"Therefore, I can only humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen,” Bhushan told the bench.
In the proceedings spanning almost three hours, besides Bhushan himself, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Rajeev Dhavan argued for him.
Dhavan said that the person who filed the contempt petition should have been examined by the court to ascertain the veracity of the allegations and the person.
The point is whether Bhushan deserved the punishment keeping in mind the fact that he as an officer of the court has done most of the work pro bono, he said while arguing on the quantum of sentence.
He said the judgement of the top court in the case will be severely criticized as it did not deal with the aspect of obstruction in administration of justice by the tweets.
“The Supreme Court will have to show that the tweets created hurdles in the administration of justice. There should be substantial interference in administration of Justice. I did not find any reasoning in the judgement from page 19 onwards,” the senior lawyer said.
The bench said “we always welcome fair criticism.”
Dhavan referred to the body of work done by Bhushan and said that he has done “pro bono” PILs on issues like 2G spectrum allocation scam and Goa mining as a public spirited citizen.
Justice Mishra said “there is a lakshman rekha for everything. Why cross it. We welcome pursuing good cases in public interest but remember, it is now after conviction. And it is a serious thing. I have not convicted anyone of contempt in 24 years as a judge. This is my first such order.”
“We understand balancing..sometimes it may happen out of zeal. But it can''t happen every time. But Mr Dhavan, you ask only us to do the balancing. Where goes the balancing by the other side. Restraint has to be shown by everyone,” the bench said.
The senior lawyer referred to a write up and said “how can a tweet that the CJI should have worn a mask put hurdles in the way of administration of Justice”.
Th bench replied “we have considered only tweets.”
“Freedom of speech is not absolute..for anyone..to me, to press, to anyone. We have to tell everyone that this is the line. No problem being an activist but we have to say this is the line. Right or wrong, we have now found him guilty,” the bench said.
At the end of the hearing, the bench said it will take two-three days time for Bhushan to think over and consider modification to his "defiant" statement refusing to apologise and "cheerfully" accepting punishment.
Comments
0 comment