SC to pronounce quantum of sentence in Prashant Bhushan contempt case

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its verdict on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan in connection with contempt of court case against him.

The apex court had on August 14 held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court over his derogatory tweets against the judiciary, saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra and also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari will pronounce its verdict against Bhushan, who faces simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or with both as punishment under Contempt of Court Act.

The bench on August 20 had asked Bhushan to reconsider his “defiant statement” and tender “unconditional apology” for the contemptuous tweets till August 24.

30 minutes given to Bhushan to apologise

On August 25, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Bhushan, had requested the top court to show “judicial statesmanship” and not make Bhushan a “martyr” by punishing him for contempt over his tweets.

Dhavan had said that reprimanding Bhushan like “don’t do it again” will not be correct and instead a statesman-like message should be there like “Mr Bhushan though we disagree with many things, but from next time you should be more responsible”.

Attorney General KK Venugopal had urged the top court to forgive Bhushan with a warning that he should not repeat this act. He also said that Bhushan should withdraw all statements and express regret.

The bench had told Venugopal that mistakes were committed by all but they needed to be accepted, but here Bhushan was not willing to accept that.

The SC had given 30 minutes to Bhushan to “think over” on withdrawing his statements made in the court and said he made “disparaging remarks against the institution and the judges”.

Bhushan, however, refused to apologise to the Supreme Court for his two tweets, saying what he expressed represented his bona fide belief which he continued to hold.