Prashant Bhushan paid the fine of Re 1 for his criminal contempt case
New Delhi:
Lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan filed a motion with the Supreme Court on Monday to request a review of his guilty verdict in last month’s criminal contempt case.
Bhushan, who today deposited a fine of Re 1, ordered as punishment for his comments on the Supreme Court and the chief judges of India, said he wanted the case against him to be heard again.
In his guilty plea, Mr. Bhushan said that Judge Arun Mishra, who led the court that heard the original case and has since resigned from office, should not have ruled on it as he had dismissed the PILs argued by him ( Mr. Bhushan), including one on alleged bribery. to politicians in connection with the case of the Sahara-Birla newspapers.
The “Sahara Diaries,” a collection of documents found in raids on offices belonging to the Sahara group in 2014, reportedly bore the names of politicians from different parties, along with amounts paid as bribes.
In January 2017, Bhushan submitted an affidavit requesting a court-supervised investigation by an SIT into the alleged bribery. The case was heard by Judge Arun Mishra and Judge Amitava Roy.
There was “a reasonable apprehension”, according to Mr. Bhushan’s request today, that he would not get a “fair and impartial hearing from Judge Arun Mishra.”
Mr. Bhushan also argued that fundamental principles had been violated in deciding his criminal case for contempt, as the initial petition was never served; the high court had made him a suo motu case.
That verdict, he argued today, turned any criticism of the institutional role into a crime of criminal contempt. The statement also requested a public hearing on the review and that the entire case be heard again.
According to the procedure, requests for review are decided by circulating files within the judges’ chambers and not in a public hearing.
Bhushan, 63, was found guilty last month of contempt of court, over tweets criticizing the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the high court. Earlier this week he announced his intention to appeal that verdict.
At last month’s hearing, the court had asked for an unconditional apology, the maintenance of freedom of expression was not absolute. Mr. Bhushan declined to apologize, arguing that he did not foresee any “substantial change” in his position and that his tweets were “the fulfillment of the highest duty”.
Open criticism is necessary to “safeguard democracy and its values,” he had said, adding that he would happily accept the punishment.
.
