Civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan was punished for criminal contempt by scandalising the Supreme Court. The court punished him with a 1 fine. He was also criticised by the court for not apologising. The court blamed his adamance and ego for that. But Mr. Bhushan told The Hindu on Friday that self-righteous ego is a must for any self-respecting, truth-loving person.
Also read: Prashant Bhushans conviction seems at odds with international free speech law: International Commission of Jurists
(Edited excerpts of the phone interview)
They are doing both. When I said that the court should be willing to suffer even intemperate criticism, I did not mean that people should level intemperate criticism. What I said is even if criticism is intemperate or unfair and bordering on scurrilous and abusive, it will be understood for what it is by the people. People can make out that this criticism is scurrilous and unfair. The courts reputation depends on their judgments and actions. It is not dependent on what people say.
Also read: Quantum not a solace: On Prashant Bhushan contempt case
The courts reputation is affected by what people say only if it seems to have a ring of fairness and authenticity. Trying to use the law of scandalising and lowering the authority by way of contempt to stifle criticism just because some of it may be scurrilous or totally unfair is counterproductive and especially dangerous because it ends up stifling honest opinion. It was my, and remains my bona fide opinion, about the role of court in the last few years. Somebody may agree with it or not, but that does not make it contempt. I am not saying the whole of contempt law should go, but the scandalising of court should go.
One should at least have some self-righteous ego. Not in the sense that you refuse to apologise even when judges reason with you to apologise. Self-righteous ego in the sense that nobody can force you to apologise if there is no reason to do so. If you have not said anything wrong and if you fully believe in what you have said, then your ego should be such, your self-righteousness should be such that you dont cave in just because they are offering you an easy way out. You cannot cave in saying something that is against your conscience and belief. That self-righteous ego is a must for any self-respecting, truth-loving person.
Also read: Prashant Bhushan held guilty of contempt for tweets against CJI
In my view they (judges) should be able to respond to criticism levelled against them. Others can also respond to these remarks, and they do. On the question of motives, sometimes motives are there for all to see. For example, there have been cases where judges have a serious conflict of interest and they still deal with those cases.
Also read: Prashant Bhushan conviction: prominent personalities express anguish
Suo motu initiation of contempt should only be after a meeting of the Full Court. Secondly, there must be an appeal against this judgment. One appeal… one criminal appeal is held to be a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court. There is no appeal against this. Review goes to the same Bench in chambers.
Also read: Pained because I have been grossly misunderstood, says Prashant Bhushan
Theoretically, it (contempt) can be done, but it is not in public interest to do so because people will stop making even bona fide and fair comments.
By and large, they are. There may be some people who level criticism or attack the court due to vested interest. But on the whole, they are a reflection of public opinion.
Also read: Legal and civil society luminaries issue statement on judgment against Prashant Bhushan
No, my motorcycle tweet… It was primarily meant to underline why the courts are being kept under lockdown. It is leading to real problems for litigants… See the number of cases normally heard by the court and the cases being heard during lockdown through videoconferencing… It is hardly 10%, and these hearings are not satisfactory.
It is not just a question of personal liberty, but proper and fair hearing. We cannot have a proper hearing through e-conferencing.
Also read: Contempt case: Statement by Prashant Bhushan
I was showing my bona fide. That look, I absolutely believed what I said. There were three things I said in that one tweet. First, democracy has been substantially destroyed in the last six years. Second, the court has facilitated or allowed the destruction of democracy in the last six years. Last, four CJIs have played a significant role in that destruction. I dealt with each of these in the reply to show why I felt that democracy has been substantially destroyed. Look at the assault on free speech, look at the destruction of regulatory institutions, look at the assault on the media… And then I said the role of the Supreme Court is to protect democracy, protect fundamental rights.
No, he felt it would be further damaging to the court if they send me to jail. That was his view.
Not yet.
More Stories
A teenager from Co Offaly has been “inundated” with orders for his handmade reindeer decorations after his mother put up a post in a popular Facebook group.
Run Windows apps such as Microsoft Office in Linux (Ubuntu) and GNOME as if they were a part of the native OS, including Nautilus integration. – Fmstrat/winapps
With Australia’s relationship with China at a very dangerous stage, the timing of what is expected to be a ‘more nuanced’ approach from a Biden administration could not be more welcome.