On Tuesday, 25 August, the Supreme Court reserved its order on sentencing in the contempt case relating to Bhushan’s recent tweets about the judiciary. This followed a long hearing in which Attorney General for India KK Venugopal continued to bat for Prashant Bhushan, urging the Supreme Court to show “statesmanship” and forgive the lawyer activist.
Bhushan’s lawyer Rajeev Dhavan also asked the court to show it had “broad shoulders” and not punish Bhushan, arguing that “severe criticism” was essential for the functioning of the court. The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari expressed their concerns over the allegations made by Bhushan in his reply affidavit to the court, and raised concerns about the constant criticism of the court in recent times.
They also said that they “don’t feel that they have prevented fair criticism” from anyone, noting that there is another contempt case against Bhushan that has been going on for 11 years without any action.
The judges were conducting a hearing to consider the “effect” of Bhushan’s supplementary statement, submitted to the court on Monday, in which he had refused to apologise for the tweets which the court has held amounted to criminal contempt.
The same judges had held on 14 August that two tweets by Bhushan – one about CJI SA Bobde and a superbike and the other about the court’s role in the destruction of democracy over the last 6 years – amounted to criminal contempt, as they ‘scandalised’ the court.
The judges had not specified the penalty for this contempt in their verdict, instead conducting another hearing on 20 August where Bhushan’s lawyers were allowed to argue on sentencing. In that previous hearing, they had decided to give Bhushan till 24 August to offer an ‘unconditional apology’.
Instead of an apology, however, Bhushan submitted a supplementary statement on the day confirming that he still held to his beliefs, and that as a result, any apology from him would be “insincere”.
ATTORNEY GENERAL URGES COURT TO SHOW ‘STATESMANSHIP’
When the hearing commenced, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, asked the judges to let Bhushan read out his supplementary statement. Justice Mishra said there was no need for this as the judges had already read the statement.
Attorney General KK Venugopal was then asked by the judges to “guide us”. The AG proceeded, suggesting that this was a “fit case” to forgive Bhushan. He noted that five retired judges of the Supreme Court had also raised similar concerns.
"“From time to time My lords, retired judges and sitting judges have been making comments. We have serious statements by five judges about Supreme Court having failed to maintain democracy.”" - Attorney General KK Venugopal
Venugopal said that such statements should be viewed as requests for self-improvement in the administration of justice.
The judges then pointed out that Bhushan, in his supplementary statement, has said that the Supreme Court didn’t consider his reply (contained in a detailed affidavit). They repeated what they said at the last hearing, that Bhushan’s lawyers had not referred to the whole affidavit during their oral arguments, and hence they had not considered the whole affidavit.
Justice Mishra then suggested that the contents of that affidavit could in fact be taken as an “aggravation”, given the allegations it contained. Reference was made to allegations against former CJI Dipak Misra, as well as Bhushan’s comments in the affidavit about the Ayodhya judgment and the way the apex court was becoming more “executive-minded”.
“No judge, sitting or retired, has been spared,” Justice Mishra observed.
AG Venugopal suggested that these allegations could be withdrawn, and that if Bhushan then made an expression of regret similar to the one he’d made in the 2009 contempt case on corruption allegations against the judiciary, "that would be a fitting end to this matter.”
COURT’S DEMAND OF UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY IS COERCION: RAJEEV DHAVAN
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan then began his arguments for Bhushan. He began by noting that Bhushan had contributed a great deal to the court in the public causes he had taken up, and in his role as amicus curiae to it.
He pointed out that Justice Arun Mishra, when Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, had refused to hold Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in contempt for her comments about judges being corrupt.
Dhavan argued that there was nothing wrong with criticism of the court, even “strong criticism”, rather that the contrary was true. “The Supreme Court will collapse if it does not face severe criticism,” he said.
He also contended that the court’s order of 20 August, in which it said it was giving him till 24 August to issue an unconditional apology was an “exercise of coercion”.
Dhavan then explained why he had asked for Bhushan’s statement to be read out to the court. He said that the judges were only focusing on what he said about not apologising, but the statement needed to be read as a whole, including his statement of respect for the court.
“An apology shouldn’t be made just to get out of clutches of the court,” Dhavan suggested, adding that “an apology must be sincere.” A sincere explanation, he according to him, should be considered to fall within the term ‘apology’.
Dhavan once again argued that “responsible criticism” was essential for the functioning of the court, and it was the duty of lawyers to do so. “The court is not immune from criticism,” he said, noting that while one could be proud of many judgments of the court (including its recent one by Justice Mishra on ensuring equal inheritance rights for Hindu women), there had been many troubling ones as well.
He concluded his arguments for Bhushan by saying that that the verdict holding Bhushan guilty on 14 August should be suo motu recalled by the court. He said that if it comes to punishment, the court in its reprimand can hardly tell Bhushan not to criticise it again.
In its order, he instead suggested that the court can express its disagreement with the things Bhushan has said, and urge Bhushan to be “a little restrained” in his criticism, and to make sure he gets his facts right.
Finally, he reiterated the AG’s request for “statesmanship” by the court, and urged them not to make Bhushan “a martyr” by imposing punishment.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON 20 AUGUST?
During an extraordinary hearing, Bhushan refused to apologise, his lawyers argued that he had acted in good faith and the judges appeared to admit they had not referred to Bhushan’s detailed reply affidavit when passing their verdict.
In a major development, Attorney General for India KK Venugopal also came out in support of Bhushan, asking the judges to not punish the lawyer-activist, while also pointing out that retired judges of the Supreme Court had said things similar to the contents of his tweets.
However, the court did not allow the senior law officer to make any detailed arguments, and said that they could not consider his suggestion to not punish Bhushan, unless Bhushan were to rethink his decision not to apologise.
Justice Mishra also informed Bhushan’s lawyers that despite Bhushan’s long record of service and the many good causes he had fought for over the years, they could not be lenient in their sentence unless he realised he had made a mistake and admitted this.
Although the judges rejected an application by Bhushan in which he had requested them to defer the sentencing till after his review petition against the court’s decision on contempt was heard, they assured him that if any sentence is passed against him, it would not be activated until his review petition had been decided.
Bhushan has till 30 days from the date of the court’s original verdict, to file a review petition.
BHUSHAN’S REFUSAL TO APOLOGISE
Bhushan first said he would not apologise in a statement to the court on 20 August itself, when he said he would not ask for “mercy”, and, paraphrasing Mahatma Gandhi, he would “cheerfully submit” to any punishment the court specified for him. When the judges urged him to rethink this statement, he said he was unlikely to change his mind but would think about it.
On 24 August, the deadline for him to submit an apology, he reiterated his decision not to apologise. Affirming his respect for the Supreme Court as an institution, he said that he had only been fulfilling his duty as a citizen and a lawyer by pointing out what he felt was a deviation from its sterling record. As a result, he said:
"“If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem.”"
'Unfortunate': MEA on Rahul Gandhi's 'lo…
29-11-2024
The ministry of external affairs condemned Rahul Gandhi's remark comparing Prime Minister Modi to Joe Biden, calling it 'unfortunate' and not reflective of India's warm ties with the US. Gandhi's...
Read more‘Responsibility to protect minorities re…
29-11-2024
External affairs minister S Jaishankar expressed serious concern over attacks on minorities in Bangladesh. During the August 2024 incidents, Hindu homes, businesses, and temples were targeted. Increased violence is noted...
Read moreIndian Navy seizes 500kg of addictive dr…
29-11-2024
The Indian Navy, in collaboration with the Sri Lankan Navy, intercepted two boats smuggling 500 kg of crystal meth in the Arabian Sea. This two-day operation began on Nov 24...
Read moreMaharashtra government withdraws Rs 10 c…
29-11-2024
The Maharashtra government revoked its earlier order to allocate Rs 10 crore additional funding to the Waqf Board after facing opposition from the BJP. Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis cited the...
Read more'Lack of unity and statements against ea…
29-11-2024
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, during the CWC meeting, attributed the party's mixed election results to internal disunity and EVM issues. He emphasized unity, discipline, and a focus on local concerns...
Read more
Man accused of murdering vlogger girlfri…
29-11-2024
Bengaluru Police arrested 21-year-old Aarav Hanoy for the murder of Maya Gogoi, a 19-year-old vlogger, at a service apartment in Indiranagar. Maya, originally from Assam, was found stabbed after checking...
Read more'People with BMWs, AC houses': Kerala fi…
29-11-2024
An audit by Kerala's Finance Department revealed misuse of social security pensions in Kottakkal Municipality, where wealthy individuals were receiving benefits intended for the economically weak. The state government has...
Read more'Haven't received any request from US': …
29-11-2024
India's ministry of external affairs has clarified that it had no prior information about the US Justice Department's indictment of Gautam Adani on bribery charges. The MEA has not received...
Read more
Cyclone Fengal likely to cross TN-Puduch…
29-11-2024
Cyclone Fengal has formed over the southwest Bay of Bengal and is expected to hit north Tamil Nadu-Puducherry coasts with winds of 70-80 kmph.
Read more
Bank holidays in December 2024: Check th…
29-11-2024
Holidays in December 2024 offer a mix of global and regional observances, including Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year's Eve. These holidays provide an opportunity for rest and celebration...
Read moreShinde won't seek berth in Centre, someo…
29-11-2024
Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Shirsat stated that if Eknath Shinde does not accept the deputy CM post, another party leader will take it. Discussions continue regarding the Maharashtra CM post...
Read more
'Grave inconsistencies': Congress writes…
29-11-2024
Congress raises concerns over inconsistencies in Maharashtra's election data, citing arbitrary voter deletions, unexplained voter additions, and unusual surges in voter turnout. They request an in-person hearing with the Election...
Read more'We have become laughing stock': Dhankha…
29-11-2024
Rajya Sabha chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized opposition MPs for continuous disruptions over Adani group allegations and other issues, accusing them of "weaponising" Rule 267. He expressed deep anguish over the...
Read moreAnother day, another halt: Parliament Wi…
29-11-2024
Parliament has been adjourned for the fifth day amid opposition protests over the Adani indictment, Manipur's situation, and Sambhal violence. Both Houses faced disruptions, and the government is criticized for...
Read more'Maintain peace and harmony': SC asks tr…
29-11-2024
The Supreme Court has instructed the Shahi Idgah Masjid's management committee in Sambhal to raise their concerns about the trial court's survey order with the high court. The top court...
Read more'Denigrating nation for personal gain': …
28-11-2024
The central government has stated that Indians seeking asylum abroad are misrepresenting the nation to achieve personal benefits. This response came when queried about the availability of data concerning Indians...
Read more
