SC larger Bench to decide conflict of free speech, contempt arising out of Prashant Bhushan case

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 25

Advertisement

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court.

Rajeev Dhavan, representing the activist lawyer, urged the court not to make him a martyr.

“My humble and most respectful submission is don’t make Prashant Bhushan a martyr,” Dhavan told a three-judge Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra. He said if the top court wanted to debar Bhushan from practising law, it will have to hear him first.

Dhavan’s submission came after Justice Mishra asked: “If we decide to punish him, what should the punishment be?”

Attorney General KK Venugopal said: “My suggestion would be to give a quietus to this matter without getting into that exercise”.

Maintaining that a warning would suffice, Venugopal said Bhushan must express regret and withdraw his affidavit justifying his controversial tweets against CJI SA Bobde and four former CJIs.

A defiant Bhushan refused to apologise, saying an insincere apology would amount to “contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem”. He was convicted of contempt of court on August 14.

Justice Mishra—who will retire on September 2—said it was quite painful to decide a contempt case just before demitting his office.

Maintaining that criticism of judiciary was welcome, Justice Mishra said judges cannot be attributed motives. “Which judge is left out—sitting or retired? Judges are condemned, their families humiliated…and they can’t even speak…Who will protect them, if not the Bar?” he wondered.

“It’s about the system. If we (Bar & Bench) are going to destroy each other, who will have faith in this institution? You have to be tolerant, see what the court is doing and why. Don’t just attack. Judges can’t go to press to defend themselves or explain,” Justice Mishra said.

In another contempt case initiated against Bhushan in 2009 for his statement that half of the 16 former CJIs were “corrupt”, the Bench agreed to refer to an appropriate Bench the question of conflict between right to free speech and suo motu contempt powers of court.

It directed that the matter be placed before the CJI for sending it to an appropriate Bench for further hearing on September 10 after Dhawan said these issues needed to be decided by a larger Bench.