[Breaking] 'My Statements Are Well Considered And Well Thought Of': Prashant Bhushan Declines SC's Offer For Time To Reconsider Statement

Advocate Prashant Bhushan on Thursday declined the Supreme Court's offer for time to reconsider the statement made by him in the Court justifying his tweets and expressing dismay at the contempt verdict.Justice Gavai asks Bhushan : Would you like to reconsider your statement?Bhushan : I don't want to reconsider the statement. As regards giving time, I don't think it will serve any useful purpose.#JusticeMishra #PrashanthBhushan @pbhushan1— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 20, 2020During hearing on sentence today before a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra, Bhushan submitted that his statements were "well-considered and well thought of". He said that he did not wish to reconsider his statements and that giving him more time to think upon it would serve no useful purpose."I don't want to reconsider the statement. As regards giving time, I don't think it will serve any useful purpose", he said. The remarks were made after Justice Mishra offered to give an opportunity to Mr. Bhushan to think over his statements and come back after 2-3 days. Delete 'Should we not give an opportunity to #PrashanthBhushan to think over and come back to us after 2-3 days?' Justice Arun Mishra asks Attorney General.#JusticeMishra #PrashanthBhushan @pbhushan1— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 20, 2020 After Justice Mishra reiterated that the Court was giving him time to think over, Bhushan replied :"If your lordships want to give me time, I welcome. But I don't think it will serve any useful purpose and it will be a waste of time of Court. It is not very likely that I will change my statement"."We will give you two-three days time. Think over. You must think over. We should not give verdict right now", Justice Mishra replied.The development occurred after Prashant Bhushan made a statement during today's hearing on sentence expressing his dismay at being held guilty of contempt, despite his efforts to uphold the majesty of the Court, "at some personal and professional cost"."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", he said.Affirming that he stood by his tweets, Bhushan said "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."Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who appeared for Bhushan, highlighted that the "nature of the person (contemnor)" should also be taken into consideration, during sentencing. Two factors are important for sentence, he submitted: 1. Nature of offence and 2. Nature of person/ contemnor He emphasized that the character and contributions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who had undertaken numerous pro bono cases in his career to bring about judicial reforms and ensure access to courts must be taken into account for the purpose of the sentence. Delete Dave refers to several Prashant Bhushan cases - coal scam, Orissa mining case, FCRA case (whether foreign funds can be used for political funding), powers of CVC, 2G case, SIT in high profile corruption cases etc.#PrashantBhushan #contemptofcourt @pbhushan1— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 20, 2020 "These proceedings have attracted more attention than the original tweets themselves, which are transitory," Dhavan submitted. He added that the Court must consider the nature of Mr. Bhushan and assess, whether he was attacking the court or is criticizing it for improving the administration of justice. On this note, he referred to Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, clause (a) whereof prescribes that no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it 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. Dhavan emphasized that under the contempt law, it is not enough for the court to say that the remarks are "scurrilous". The Court has to state that the comments have "substantially interfered with the administration justice". "It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt. It must be shown that that the act of contempt must substantially interfere with the administration of justice," Dhavan argued. Elaborating further on the submission that ...

[Breaking] 'My Statements Are Well Considered And Well Thought Of': Prashant Bhushan Declines SC's Offer For Time To Reconsider Statement

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

[Breaking] 'My Statements Are Well Considered And Well Thought Of': Prashant Bhushan Declines SC's Offer For Time To Reconsider Statement

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Akshita Saxena

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers