The SC reserved its verdict on August 25 on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to lawyer Prashant Bhushan for his 바카라contemptuous바카라 tweets against Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and three of his predecessors. However, the month-long impasse in the case바카라the court바카라s insistence for an unconditional apology from the lawyer and Bhushan바카라s steadfast refusal to oblige바카라did 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 Bhushan바카라s counsel, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan. The proceedings, though, sank deeper into the ongoing stalemate. Venugopal and Dhavan urged the bench for 바카라compassion바카라 and 바카라statesmanship바카라. Justice Mishra asserted the virtues of an apology바카라바카라a magical word that can heal many things바카라.
That many may find unusual the extant decisions in the two contempt casesÂÂ바카라referring one to a different bench and reserving the verdict in the other바카라is 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 Bhushan바카라s 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 lawyer바카라s 30-year professional record, have put the court in a dilemma. Even Dhavan has cautioned the bench that punishment 바카라would make Bhushan a martyr바카라.
