SC fines Bhushan ₹1 for contempt of court
Quantum of punishment small, but judgment comes down heavily on the activist-lawyer
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday ordered advocate Prashant Bhushan to pay a fine of one rupee for criminal contempt of court, observing that his refusal to express remorse reflected his “ego” and “obstinacy”, and his “offensive” tweets should not go unpunished because that would send a wrong message to lawyers and litigants. Bhushan agreed to pay. While the Bhushan camp considered the nominal fine a victory in the perception battle, the order passed by the three-judge bench headed by justice Arun Mishra reflected a different tenor as it reiterated August 14 judgment by which it found Bhushan guilty. “We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor (Bhushan) either with imprisonment or from debarring him from practice. His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in a noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs. 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,” the court said. It ordered Bhushan to deposit the fine of ₹1 with the SC registry before September 15. If he fails to comply, Bhushan will have to undergo imprisonment of three months and be debarred from practising before SC for 3 years. In a statement at 4pm, Bhushan said while he will pay the fine, he will explore other legal remedies available to him. “While I reserve the right to seek a review of the conviction and sentencing by way of an appropriate legal remedy, I propose to submit myself to this order and will respectfully pay the fine, just as I would have submitted to any other lawful punishment,” the statement read. Bhushan said it was heartening for him that the case became a watershed moment for freedom of speech and maintained that his tweets were not intended to disrespect the SC or the judiciary. “Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen.” The bench, however, said that, in it its view, “the act committed by the contemnor is a very serious one.” “He has attempted to denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice of which he himself is a part. At the cost of repetition, we have to state that the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up,” the bench, which also comprised justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, said. Bhushan’s two tweets, one against the SC on June 27 and other against Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde on June 29, had led to suo motu (on its own motion) contempt of court action against him. The court found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt on August 14 and held a separate hearing on August 20 and 25 to determine the sentence to be awarded to him. It then reserved its verdict on sentencing. The court maintained in the verdict that while free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution allows fair criticism of courts and judges, it cannot be stretched beyond a limit to allow malicious and scandalous statements. “The allegations made are scandalous and are capable of shaking the very edifice of the judicial administration and also shaking the faith of common man in the administration of justice,” the court said. According to the Contempt of Courts Act, the offence of criminal contempt carries a punishment of up to six months in prison or a fine up to ₹2,000 or both. Interestingly, Attorney General KK Venugopal, who appeared in the case in his personal capacity at the court’s request, had asked the court on August 20 not to punish Bhushan and instead let him off with a reprimand. The court afforded Bhushan the opportunity to apologise at least three occasions but he turned it down saying his tweets reflected his bona fide beliefs and any apology for expressing views which he considered to be correct will not be sincere. “The quantum of punishment being less does not mean that the stance taken by Prashant Bhushan has been vindicated. The only argument that the Court seemed to have accepted from the side of Prashant Bhushan seems to me the argument, ‘do not make Prashant Bhushan a martyr’. How this judgment impacts ‘free speech - criticism of courts debate’ remains to be seen,” Supreme Court lawyer Sriram Parakkat said.