The Supreme Court will later on Thursday hear Prashant Bhushan before sentencing him days after the activist lawyer was held guilty of criminal contempt of court on August 14. According to the Contempt of Courts Act, the offence carries a punishment of up to six months in prison or a fine up to Rs 2,000 or both.
A three-judge bench of justice Arun Mishra is expected to commence the hearing after 11 am.
Bhushan, on Wednesday, moved the Supreme Court seeking deferment of the proceedings till a review petition is filed and considered.
The court on August 14 said Bhushan’s tweets dated June 27 and June 29, criticising Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and raising questions about the conduct of former CJIs and the court, were based on distorted facts. It added the tweets have the effect of destabilising the foundation of the Indian judiciary.
“The Indian judiciary is not only one of pillars on which the Indian democracy stands but is the central pillar. An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand,” the three-judge bench said.
In his defence to the court in an affidavit filed on August 2, Bhushan said: “I am entitled to form, hold, & express (opinion) under Article 19(1)(a)”.
Some supported the court’s actions, pointing to Bhushan’s support for such actions in 2017 when the court took Calcutta high court judge justice CS Karnan to task for making allegations against Supreme Court judges. Others said the court was being a tad touchy in seeing comments against judges as those against the court.
In its judgment of August 14, the court said the allegations levelled in the tweets against the court and CJI are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the court and such conduct was not expected from Bhushan, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing at the Bar.
The court observed that the Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens as the last resort when they fail to get justice elsewhere. It added an attack on the Supreme Court will hamper not just the confidence that the public has in it but will also shake the confidence that judges of other courts in the country have in the Supreme Court.
The court took cognizance of the tweets after a petition was filed by advocate Mehek Maheshwari.
Bhushan’s first tweet, reproduced in the court order, said: “When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last four CJIs.”
The second referred to the Bobde and was also cited in the order. It said: “The CJI rides a Rs 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC on lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!”
Bhushan refused to apologise for his tweets, contending they are protected by the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. He cited the speeches on dissent made by Supreme Court judges DY Chandrachud on February 15 and Deepak Gupta on February 24 to buttress his case.
In defence of his perception that the Supreme Court aided in the destruction of democracy, Bhushan referred to the press conference held by four judges – justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph — of the Supreme Court in January 2018 against the manner in which cases in Supreme Court were being assigned to selected benches.
Regarding the tweet of June 27, the apex court held that tweet is directed against the Supreme Court and gave an impression that the apex court and its four CJIs had a major role in the destruction of democracy in the last six years.
“There is no doubt that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary. The tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI,” the court said.
Regarding the June 29 tweet, the court said that it was intended to give the impression that the CJI kept the Supreme Court shut denying fundamental rights to citizens even though the court was functioning through video conferencing.
Another suo motu contempt petition is pending before the same bench against Bhushan for calling past chief justices corrupt in a 2009 interview to Tehelka magazine.
