"Comments Were Opinion Made In Good Faith Founded on True Facts":Rajeev Dhavan Seeks To Recall The SC Judgment Convicting Prashant Bhushan [Read WS]

"Bhushan's comments were opinion made in good faith founded on true facts," submitted Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan in his written submission filed before the Supreme Court on sentencing of Advocate Prashant Bhushan, in the contempt verdict. Dhavan has averred that Bhushan was denied the defence of 'truth' which is mandatory in law, and has thus urged the Top Court to recall the convicting judgment suo moto. He has further averred that no sentence should be imposed on Mr. Bhushan, in any event, merely for making bonafide remarks.The crux of the submissions is as follows; (i) Bhushan's comments were opinion made in good faith founded on true facts. ii) Similar opinions were made before as demonstrated by the Attorney General(iii) In the present controversy similar comments are made by Justices Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.P. Shah, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV. It would follow that they were all in contempt(iv) There should not be any attempt to coerce the contemnor into making on apology on the basis that nothing else would be acceptable. On August 14, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his tweets against the SC and the Chief Justices of India. The Supreme Court had posted the matter for sentencing on August 20 however, it granted two-three days time to Mr. Bhushan to reconsider his statements. The matter will now be taken up tomorrow, August 25. Prashant Bhushan Contempt: SC To Consider Tomorrow 'Effect Of Supplementary Statement' Senior Advocate Dhavan has submitted that the Supreme Court refuted Bhushan's claim that in recent years the Supreme Court, especially the last 4 Chief Justices have contributed to the destruction of democracy "without examination", even though a detailed affidavit was placed before the Court. He has stated that 'Truth' is an absolute defence in any contempt proceeding and thus, the 'truth value' of Bhushan's tweets must be assessed. He pointed out that Bhushan's affidavit was "fully backed up" by details and materials on how and why Bhushan came to his opinions, which led to the contempt verdict. However, the same was not examined and it needs to be examined at this state of sentencing in compliance with Section 13(b) which states that it can be raised "in any proceedings".He emphasized that similar comments about the SC have been made by Justices Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.P. Shah, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV. It would follow that they were all in contempt. On this basis, the Attorney General has also counselled against punishment in the present case. He is also concerned by procedural irregularity in the contempt proceedings inasmuch as the Supreme Court did not supply a copy of the complaint made against Mr. Bhushan, despite the mandate under Rule 6 (2) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. "The Supreme Court failed to do so even after Bhushan filed an application for the same…The implications of this are far reaching because Bhushan and the public are entitled to know whether the complaint was malafide or even personally or politically motivated," he submitted. Further, he has submitted that Section 13 (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act requires that the Court "is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice". The terms 'is satisfied' and 'substantially' are not mere incantations but place a responsibility on the Court to examine the extent of interference and be fully satisfied, Dhavan said. "In Prashant Bhushan's case no such inquiry has taken place and the court has assumed that what he said was contempt as interfering with justice. This is a failure of the Court's obligation which goes towards denying the passage of any sentence," he submitted. He added, "The very jurisdiction of contempt and scandalizing as enunciated in this case convicting Mr. Bhushan is vague and colonial." It is a fundamental principle of criminal law, he said, that the offence must be clear "without ambiguity". However, the offence of criminal contempt for scandalizing the court is "notoriously vague". "It has not been defined anywhere by statute (Section 2(c)(i)) or by judgments. It has rightly been called a 'vague and wandering' jurisdiction….an undefined or ambiguously defined offence has to be handled with care, and used only in extreme cases…Words like 'scurrilous' or 'shocking the conscience' are meaningless…," the submission read. He further pointed out that the SC's verdict in the contempt case sought succour from judgments in National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency v. Union of India (2019) SCC Online 411 and Vijay Kurle (2020) SCC SC 407 as precedents "without distinguishing their facts". ...

"Comments Were Opinion Made In Good Faith Founded on True Facts":Rajeev Dhavan Seeks To Recall The SC Judgment Convicting Prashant Bhushan [Read WS]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

"Comments Were Opinion Made In Good Faith Founded on True Facts":Rajeev Dhavan Seeks To Recall The SC Judgment Convicting Prashant Bhushan [Read WS]

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers