Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Monday deposited the Re 1 fine imposed on him by the Supreme Court. On 31 August, the Supreme Court had imposed token fine of Re 1 on Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court.
Prashant Bhushan spoke to mediapersons outside the Supreme Court and said this doesn’t mean that he is accepting the court’s judgement. Bhushan has also filed a review petition against the top court’s judgement. Hours later, Bhushan also filed a re- view petition in the top court against its decision to convict him of criminal contempt of court for posting a series of tweets raising questions on the apex courts impartiality.
On 31 August, SC had imposed a token penalty of ru- pee one on Bhushan as his “punishment” in the criminal contempt case. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had said: “Bhushan must deposit rupee one by 15 September, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.”
“The act committed by the contemnor (Bhushan) 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 top court had said.
The court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. “Directly or indirectly, the contemnor (Bhushan) was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General,” the court said.
The top court in its judgement said: “The contemnor (Bhushan) not only gave wide publicity to the second statement submitted before this court on 24 August prior to the same being tendered to the court, but also gave various interviews with regard to sub-judice matter, thereby further attempting to bring down the reputation of this court. If we do not take cognisance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by show- ing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Re1/- (Rupee one).”
The top court also made observations regarding the press conference held by four Supreme Court judges in January 2018. The SC said: “We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer judges. It would cause suffering to them till eternity. Truth can be the defence to the Judges also, but they are bound by their judicial norms, ethics, and code of conduct.”
These observations were made while addressing the defence raised by Bhushan relying on the statements made by four SC judges in the press conference. After the Supreme Court judgement, speaking to The Daily Guardian, Prashant Bhushan said: “My lawyer and senior colleague Rajiv Dhavan contributed 1 Re immediately after the contempt judgement today which I gratefully accepted.”
Prashant Bhushan also hold a press conference and said: “I am here to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the court has determined to be an of- fence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”
“Therefore, 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.”
“I have had the greatest respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed it to be the last bastion of hope, particularly for the weak and the oppressed who knock at its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive. My tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but were merely meant to express my anguish, at what I felt, was a deviation from its sterling past record. This issue was never about me versus the Hon’ble Judges, much less about me vs the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins. Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously, if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen,” Bhushan said.
