Prashant Bhushan contempt case in SC: Activist-lawyer quotes Mahatma Gandhi, says 'do not ask for mercy': full text
Bhushan, after the Supreme Court rejected his plea that the arguments on quantum of sentence be heard by another top court bench, said his tweets were 'nothing but a small attempt to discharge' what he considered to be his 'highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic.'
Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court on Thursday that he did not tweet in “absence mindedness” [sic] and it would be insincere and contemptuous on his part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be his bona fide belief.
Bhushan, after the Supreme Court rejected his plea that the arguments on quantum of sentence be heard by another top court bench, said his tweets were "nothing but a small attempt to discharge" what he considered to be his "highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic."
The top court on 14 August had held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for 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.
The following is the full text of Bhushan's statement in the apex court.
I have gone through the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold — not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard — for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost.
I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood. I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack.
I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the
basis of which the suo motu notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel.
I find it hard to believe that the Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilizing the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself.
I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must come before personal and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself.
My tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and continues to be my bonafide belief.
Therefore, I can only humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to 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.
The text has been reproduced and has not been edited by Firstpost for style or content.
'Really impressed': CJI responds to schoolgirl's letter lauding SC for saving lives in COVID-19 fight
Lidwina Joseph, a student of Kendriya Vidyalaya at Thrissur, enclosed in her letter a drawing depicting discharge of duties by the apex court where a judge is seen hammering down the coronavirus
Various judges however ordered the government to take additional safety measures.
Calls for a fresh push for the demand have followed the Supreme Court's 5 May decision that held that total reservations cannot breach the 50 percent ceiling.