Supreme Stalemate

The SC reserved its verdict on August 25 on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to lawyer Prashant Bhushan for his 바카라�contemptuous바카라� tweets against Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and three of his predecessors. However, the month-long impasse in the case바카라�the court바카라�s insistence for an unconditional apology from the lawyer and Bhushan바카라�s steadfast refusal to oblige바카라�did not break.

The decision of the three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, to reserve its verdict on the punishment came after it heard, for nearly three hours, submissions by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Bhushan바카라�s counsel, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan. The proceedings, though, sank deeper into the ongoing stalemate. Venugopal and Dhavan urged the bench for 바카라�compassion바카라� and 바카라�statesmanship바카라�. Justice Mishra asserted the virtues of an apology바카라�바카라�a magical word that can heal many things바카라�.

That many may find unusual the extant decisions in the two contempt cases­­바카라�referring one to a different bench and reserving the verdict in the other바카라�is largely because of the initial haste shown by Justice Mishra in adjudicating the two cases despite knowing that he was due to retire in a few weeks. Equally surprising was how stridently Venugopal implored the bench to show leniency even though he had, in the recent past, been the target of Bhushan바카라�s barbs while defending the Centre as Attorney General.

As Bhushan has already been held guilty of contempt for his tweets, he is liable to serve a prison term of up to six months or pay a fine of Rs 2,000 or both. Yet, the massive solidarity that the legal fraternity, including many former apex court judges, and public intellectuals have shown for Bhushan and the lawyer바카라�s 30-year professional record, have put the court in a dilemma. Even Dhavan has cautioned the bench that punishment 바카라�would make Bhushan a martyr바카라�.