New Delhi: A person should be able to realise his mistake from the core of his heart, the Supreme Court said Thursday, asking advocate Prashant Bhushan to reconsider his fresh statement in which he reiterated that the two tweets against current and six former Chief Justices of India (CJI) were an expression of his beliefs that were grossly misunderstood.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari gave this piece of advice to Bhushan after he read out his statement before the virtual court, which had assembled for a hearing on his sentencing for contempt of court. Bhushan was held guilty of contempt on 14 August, and can be sent to jail for six months.
However, even in the fresh statement, Bhushan maintained his tweets were an open criticism of an institution, which is required in a healthy democracy.
Bhushan said he was pained, shocked and dismayed, not because he may be punished, but because he has been “grossly misunderstood” by the court that arrived at a conclusion without providing him any evidence.
Bhushan did not issue an apology in the statement. Instead, he quoted Mahatma Gandhi to say he would not ask for mercy nor magnanimity, but cheerfully submit to any penalty.
The bench reserved its verdict in the contempt case, as it gave time to Bhushan till 24 August to furnish an unconditional apology. If Bhushan does so, the court will hear the matter on 25 August.
Also read: ‘Patently false’, based on ‘distorted facts’ — SC judgment on Prashant Bhushan contempt cases
Exchange in the court
At the outset, the court rejected Bhushan’s request to defer the hearing on sentencing until he availed of the remedy to file a review against the conviction order, which he said can be done within 30 days of the pronouncement. It even rejected the oral prayer made to let another bench decide on the issue of punishment.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued the court must not insist on an apology every time and that a bona fide statement or explanation given by an alleged contemnor should be sufficient. In response, Justice Arun Mishra said: “There is no person on Earth who can’t commit a mistake. A person should be able to realise he has committed a mistake, from the core of his heart. I am not someone who would punish anyone just like that.”
The bench gave time to Bhushan to reconsider the statement he read out. Initially, Bhushan was unwilling to accept the court’s suggestion, but reluctantly agreed when the bench said: “Don’t say tomorrow that we have not given you time to do so.”
Bhushan then told the bench: “I may reconsider it if my lordships want but there won’t be any substantial change. I don’t want to waste my lordships’ time.”
To this, the bench said: “You had better reconsider it. Don’t just apply the legal brain here.”
The court is expected to hear the matter again next week.
Attorney General cites Bhushan’s good work
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, who was not attending in his capacity as lawyer for the government, urged the bench not to punish Prashant Bhushan, although he did not defend him for his tweets. The top law officer endorsed the court’s decision to give more time to Bhushan to reconsider his statement.
“I have known him for so many years. He has done tremendous work,” Venugopal said.
However, the bench did not want the AG to share his personal opinion on Bhushan. “This is about law and not your personal opinion,” the court told him.
Good work done in the past cannot allow one to cross the ‘Lakshman Rekha’, the court said.
Venugopal’s viewpoint was sought in the wake of Bhushan’s latest statement — the court wanted to know whether Bhushan should be given more time considering he has not shown any remorse.
The judges told Venugopal to read Bhushan’s statement and then make his submissions. “Consider if that’s a defence or an aggravation. Read it and then tell us what we should do. Please address us as the Attorney General, an officer of this court,” the bench clarified to Venugopal.
The AG tried making submissions on Bhushan’s remarks against corruption in judiciary, and cited former Supreme Court judges’ comments on it.
However, he was stopped from addressing the court and was told to advance the arguments in the second contempt case against Bhushan, pending before the top court since 2009.
‘Lakshman Rekha for judges, why not for others?’
Dhavan asked the court to keep Bhushan’s background and stature in mind before declaring the punishment. He read out a list of cases that Bhushan has fought in the past, exposing corruption in government as well as the judiciary.
“He (Bhushan) is someone who is trying to bring about changes through administration of justice,” Dhavan said.
He criticised the court’s 14 August verdict convicting Bhushan, saying it was a cut-and-paste job that will be severely criticised once it reaches judicial academies.
As Dhavan was about to advance arguments on the need for courts to adopt a balanced approach in such cases, the bench said: “We understand balancing. You ask only us to do the balancing. Where goes the balancing by the other side? Restraint has to be shown by everyone.”
Justice Mishra said the courts were not averse to good cases fought in public interest, but in this case, the “majesty of this court has been brought down”. He said in his 21 years as a judge, he has never convicted anyone for contempt.
“I have done it now when I am about to retire,” Justice Mishra said, conceding that the power of ‘contempt’ should be used sparingly.
He even clarified that the purpose of sentencing was deterrence, so that it is not repeated.
When Dhavan contended that contempt was also made out against four former judges of the top court and several publications that reproduced or supported Bhushan’s statement, the court asked him to drop this line of argument.
“It is, after all, about if a person wants to purge the contempt. One should realise where the line is, the lakshman rekha. Criminal contempt has far serious consequences. We can be very lenient when a person realises his mistake and expresses remorse,” the bench said, wrapping up the proceedings.
Also read: India turned a blind eye to Justice Karnan, an ‘outsider’. Prashant Bhushan is different
Theprint plays it safe and tries its best to bury the story somewhere. About Mishraji, if one were to crystalgaze a bit, one gets a feeling that the gentleman has done enough to be slated for bigger things once out of office. And also that history maybe after 40-50 years will put him in the same category as one of his predecessors Shri Khanna.
Bhushan , like HR Khanna will be remembered for eternity as someone who did not hanker after the spoils of being ‘Yes Men’ and that is an achievement this panel of judges can be congratulated for .
The most puzzling aspect of how this case has been disposed of is the decision not to go into merits. Shri Prashant Bhushan in his lengthy affidavit has listed out the decisions / developments that led him to arrive at certain views on the state of the judiciary. Unless those are considered carefully and found to be devoid of merit, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that he has acted maliciously. The decision to hold him guilty of contempt, followed by a sentence of imprisonment, would be a very somber moment in the evolution of this fine institution whom Indians have always looked up to.
A G Venugopal deserves praise for his intervention in his personal capacity. He is reading the tea leaves correctly.
What an awful headline and what an awful way to present what happened in the Court today!! You completely missed it. Didn’t expect this from an organization headed by Shekhar Gupta. Shame on you Shekhar and shame on your editorial staff.