Cost Of Contempt

Almost as soon as the Supreme Court pronounced its ­punishment for lawyer Prashant Bhushan in a contempt of court case on August 31, countless memes and sardonic one-liners targeting the judiciary flooded social media. Sympathy and solidarity that the activist-­lawyer found from the legal fraternity and countless public intellectuals across the country over the past two months since the apex court initiated, suo motu, contempt proceedings against him turned into a collective celebratory roar as the three-judge bench sentenced Bhushan.

바카라�If we do not take cognisance of such conduct, it will give a wrong message to lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing ­magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor (Bhushan) with a ­nominal fine of Re 1,바카라� the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari ruled. The quantum of punishment was in response to the guilty verdict the court had served Bhushan in July for two tweets about Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and three of his predecessors.

The court바카라�s indictment of Bhushan had been strident. The bench held that Bhushan바카라�s tweets and his two ­statements to the court refusing to apologise for his action constituted an attempt to 바카라�denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of ­justice of which he himself is a part바카라�. 바카라�Lawyers바카라� noble profession will lose all its significance and charm and dignity if lawyers are permitted to make any ­malicious, scandalous and scurrilous ­allegations against the institution바카라�. Lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust, but at the same time respectful to the institution,바카라� the bench said.

Although the bench decided to show 바카라�magnanimity바카라� despite the stinging ­condemnation, it also stated that Bhushan would be imprisoned for three months and barred from practising law in the apex court for three years if he failed to deposit the fine by September 15. 바카라�We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. His conduct reflects adamance (sic) and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice,바카라� the bench added. Bhushan had told the bench earlier: 바카라�I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity바카라�. I cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be ­inflicted upon me for what the court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.바카라�

That the lawyer had been held guilty of contempt by the court and was now being 바카라�sentenced바카라� is an unusual reason for Bhushan바카라�s comrades and backers to cheer over, but cheer they did. The ­entire proceedings against the lawyer in the contempt case바카라�given his reputation for championing causes like transparency, human rights and judicial accountability through a career spanning 37 years바카라�had been a departure from the otherwise prosaic judicial business. From the court바카라�s timing in ­instituting the case against Bhushan, and in a manner that several legal ­experts have dubbed questionable, to how it decided to revive another ­contempt case pending against Bhushan since 2009 (now to be put up before a different bench), and the ­arguments proffered by Bhushan바카라�s counsel바카라�every aspect of the case ­triggered a larger debate.

Then came Bhushan바카라�s steadfast ­refusal to apologise for his comments바카라�made twice in two separate statements바카라�and the court almost ­beseeching him repeatedly to apologise and 바카라�give quietus to this matter바카라�. Bhushan바카라�s defiance that continued even beyond the pronouncement of a guilty verdict, however, placed the court in a tricky situation of its own making. The bench seemed to dither about applying the punishment ­mandated under the law of contempt바카라�up to six months imprisonment or fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both바카라�but, as it had already judged Bhushan guilty, it couldn바카라�t let the ­lawyer go free either. Bhushan바카라�s counsel, Rajeev Dhavan, too made a clever legal manoeuvre by ­telling the court that his client would ­attain the status of a martyr if he were imprisoned by the court, making it ­obvious that such an eventuality will only attract more criticism for the court. This has indeed happened ­increasingly over the past few years as several activists such as Varavara Rao and Sudha Bharadwaj continue to be incarcerated under ­allegedly trumped-up charges. Even Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, whose assistance the court had sought in the case, had urged the bench to let Bhushan go, perhaps with a reprimand, but ­certainly not a jail sentence.

The case also reignited the debate ­between the judiciary바카라�s solemn duty of protecting a citizen바카라�s constitutional right to freedom of expression and the application of the contempt law, a court바카라�s capacity to take criticism, and the equivalence between individual judges and the institution they ­represent. At a time when intolerance of dissent has become an emotive issue, it would perhaps have been ­obvious to both Bhushan and the court that jailing a reputed lawyer with a massive body of public action ­litigation behind him would play out poorly in public discourse.

Expectedly, while awarding Bhushan the Re 1 penalty, the court sought to ­address these concerns. 바카라�Public has a right to criticise in good faith.바카라� However, the members of the public are required to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice. Right to fair criticism is contrasted against acting in malice or attempting to bring down the reputation of the institution of administration of justice,바카라� the bench held. If the caveat failed to put the mind of observers to rest, it is, perhaps, for the court to revisit the case.

The normally voluble Bhushan has, for now, chosen to speak cautiously on the punishment meted out to him. 바카라�I reserve the right to seek a review of the conviction and sentencing, by way of an appropriate legal remedy,바카라� Bhushan said, adding that he would ­바카라�respectfully pay the fine, just as I would have ­submitted to any other lawful ­punishment바카라�. Speaking to the media shortly after the court pronoun­ced the ­quantum of punishment, Bhushan also ­reiterated his 바카라�greatest respect바카라� for the Supreme Court, which he described as the 바카라�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 executive바카라�.

Bhushan has maintained that his tweets were 바카라�not intended in any way to disrespect the judiciary as a whole바카라�, but were an expression of his anguish. 바카라�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,바카라� he said. The reconciliatory message from Bhushan following weeks of unwavering defiance, however, is clearly not the end of his battle. By all accounts, he will challenge his conviction soon. And then, there바카라�s the 11-year-old contempt case against him too, which was slapped on him for naming, in an interview to Tehelka magazine, several past chief justices of India as corrupt.