Prashant Bhushan files fresh plea seeking review of Supreme Court order in contempt case
The petition said it was a manifest error on the part of the judgment passed on 31 August to conclude that criticism of individual judges amounted to a malicious attack on the court itself
New Delhi: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking review of the 31 August sentencing order to either pay fine of Re 1 or face a three-month jail term and debarment from law practice for three years in the contempt case for his two tweets against the judiciary.
Bhushan, who has already deposited Re 1 as fine with the apex court's registry on 14 September, has filed two separate review petitions in the contempt case.
The first review plea on 14 September had challenged the 14 August verdict convicting him for the contempt of court, while the second plea has been filed against the 31 August sentencing order which imposed the fine.
In the second review plea, filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, Bhushan has sought an oral hearing in an open court on the matter.
He has also sought recall of the impugned judgment and a fresh hearing, and said that the questions of law raised by him should be referred to a larger bench of appropriate strength.
The plea said Bhushan was not supplied with the copy of the contempt petition filed by a lawyer on which the apex court had taken cognisance.
Referring to an apex court judgement, the review plea said the court never indicated to Bhushan that it was contemplating barring from practicing as a lawyer.
"At no point during the judicial proceedings in this matter did this court even slightly indicate that it was contemplating disbarring the Petitioner-Advocate herein from appearing before this court," the plea said.
However, without any prior notice, the impugned order imposed on the petitioner a sentence in the alternative disbarring him from appearing before this court for a period of three years which is per incuriam as per the law laid down by a coordinate three judge bench in RK Anand vs Delhi High Court case, it further stated.
The rules of natural justice, therefore, demand that before passing an order debarring an advocate from appearing in courts he must be clearly told that his alleged conduct or actions are such that if found guilty he might be debarred from appearing in courts for a specific period, it said.
Besides, Bhushan was denied an opportunity to file a fresh affidavit in case the court was not satisfied by his preliminary reply.
He said that his second tweet regarding the judiciary in the last six years was not part of the contempt petition and was a separate issue altogether and should have been placed before the Chief Justice Of India for appropriate directions in the face of settled law.
The petitioner was further denied an opportunity to lead evidence under Section 17(5) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to substantiate averments in his preliminary reply, the plea said.
On 14 August, the top court had held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two 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.
Holding that Bhushan attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court, the top court had said, If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations.
The top court had analysed the two tweets of Bhushan posted on the micro-blogging site Twitter on 27 June on the functioning of judiciary in past six years, and on 22 July with regard to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde.
The suit said that as the general consent given to the central agency by the Trinamool Congress government has been withdrawn, the FIRs lodged cannot be proceeded with
Majithia said he has never heard of the chief minister or the Punjab Congress chief stranded on any road for 15-20 minutes
SC expands definition of vulnerable witness to include age and gender neutral victims of sexual assault
The apex court also expanded the definition to include any speech or hearing impaired individual or a person suffering from any other disability, who is considered to be a vulnerable witness by the competent court