When the Supreme Court of India wins, all Indians win, said Prashant Bhushan (Archive)
New Delhi:
Prashant Bhushan said today that he had decided to submit to the Supreme Court’s order fining him Re 1 for contempt of court and that he would “respectfully pay the fine” as he would have been subjected to any other legal punishment. The Supreme Court had told the activist lawyer to pay the fine or he would face three months in jail or a ban from practicing in the Supreme Court for three years.
When the Supreme Court of India wins, all Indians win, he said.
Prashant Bhushan had previously refused to apologize or retract his tweets about the judiciary, saying he considered them the fulfillment of his “highest duty” and to apologize would be a disregard for his conscience and the court.
He said today that he had decided to submit to the order even though he reserved the right to request a review of the conviction and sentence.
“I have had the utmost respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed that it is the last bastion of hope, especially for the weak and oppressed who knock on its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive.” Bhushan said.
“My tweets were not intended to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but simply to express my distress, from what I felt was a departure from their excellent record.”
Mr. Bhushan said that the issue was never about “me against the judges, much less about me against the Supreme Court.”
All Indians, he said, wanted a strong and independent judiciary. “Obviously, if the court is weakened, it weakens the republic and hurts all citizens,” he said.
“What is very encouraging is that this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of expression and appears to have encouraged many people to stand up and speak out against the injustices in our society,” said Mr. Bhushan.
“I am more certain than ever that the truth will prevail. Long live democracy! Satyameva Jayate.”
The Supreme Court said that it had shown magnanimity with Re 1’s punishment, but affirmed that while freedom of expression is important, the rights of others must also be respected.
.
