Bhushan’s choice
It is no precedent in terms of redefining the law, nor is it an example of judicial statesmanship — an exercise that the respondent in the Supreme Court’s 2020 suo motu contempt of court petition had prayed for before the court. But the much- publicised sentence of a ` 1 fine in menacing conjunction with the nasty threat — of a three- month jail sentence and disbarment — that failed to conceal or disguise the intent of intimidation nor the old- style, passive- aggressive conservatism of its writers — coming as it did in 82 thick leaves pursuant to a 108- page judgment — during a lockdown when thousands of urgent petitions desperately awaited their audience — nonetheless spells hope. It holds the promise that the citizen’s right to free speech may yet emerge morally victorious. Should their view carry genuine weight, its opponents will blink, and expose themselves.
This is despite the fact that Mr Bhushan is a privileged man. None other than the attorney general of India spoke for him. His name carries influence in the bar association circles. As it transpired, the conclusion to the case was plain for what it was — a crafty manoeuvre by the bench — of Justices Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai, and Krishna Murari — to beat a hasty retreat after biting of more than it could chew. Perhaps Justice Mishra and his brother judges had made an error of judgement in taking suo motu cognisance of contempt in response to advocate Mahek Maheshwari’s petition in the first place. It is widely believed that Mr Bhushan, in fact, did a service to the judiciary by calling attention to his misgivings. This newspaper opined that the bench was in contempt of justice by pronouncing him guilty. And the bench went on to prove it right!
In sentencing Mr Bhushan to the token fine, the bench had aimed for the high moral ground. It ended up making a mockery of itself. There was much mirth over photos of Mr Bhushan’s advocate, Rajeev Dhawan, comically presenting him a one- rupee coin, post the announcement. Kudos to Mr Bhushan for displaying grace under pressure, not giving in to the impulse for drama — of being seen braving imprisonment and discredit — but paying the fine cheerfully as he had promised to. He reserved the right to file a review petition. His next move remains unpredictable.