[Breaking]'Tells Us What Is Wrong In Using The Word "Apology"': Asks Justice Mishra As SC Reserves Judgment In Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case Over Two Tweets

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra on Tuesday reserved judgment on the sentence in the suo moto contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan over his tweets."Tell us what is wrong in using the word 'apology'? What is wrong in seeking apology? Will that be reflection of the guilty? Apology is a magical word, which can heal many things. I am talking generally and not about Prashant. You will go to the category of Mahatma Gandhi, if you apologise. Gandhiji used to do that. If you have hurt anybody, you must apply balm. One should not feel belittled by that", observed Justice Mishra while reserving Judgment.#JusticeMishra : You will got to the category of Mahatma Gandhi if you apologize. Gandhiji used to do that. If you have hurt anybody, you must apply balm. One should not feel belittled by that.#PrashantBhushan #SupremeCourt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 25, 2020In the afternoon session Dr. Dhavan resumed his submission stating that he wears "two hats" and that he, as a Senior Advocate, has a duty to the Court as well as a duty to his client."When your Lordships sentences, your Lordships should first look at the offender. This 'offender' has contributed a lot to this Court as Amicus and in public causes, as the Attorney-General pointed", said Dhavan.Dhavan remarked that he had written over 1000 articles, with 900 of them about the Supreme Court. Further, he had said that the Supreme Court had a "middle class temperament" and asked if that could be termed as contempt.It was argued by Dhavan that the AG submitted that Bhushan's views had been expressed by many former judges."I remind Justice Arun Mishra that when he was a Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, your Lordships did not initiate contempt against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for her comments that judges are corrupt. Your Lordships took into account her position as Chief Minister", submitted Dhavan. Dhavan gravely noted that the the Supreme Court would collapse if it did not face severe criticism.'Apology cannot be escape clutches of law', Dhavan He further noted that the convicting judgement contained "half-truths and contradictions". Observations on the August 20 Order of the Supreme Court were submitted by Dhavan before the Court as he stated that the Order giving time to Bhushan to apologize gave the impression that Bhushan was being coerced to give an apology and it was an "exercise of coercion""The Order which says that it will only accept unconditional apology is an exercise of coercion", averred Dhavan. Dhavan further submitted that Bhushan was sincerely expressing his bona fide belief. He added, "Tomorrow if I am indicted for contempt (I have done many contemptuous things), am I expected not to give a defence?"An apology cannot be made to escape the clutches of law. An apology has to be sincere", submitted Dhavan. Dhavan then referred to the impugned tweets of Bhushan, the basis on which the suo moto contempt case had been initiated. He submitted that the first tweet of Bhushan did not insinuate that the Court did not work as he was merely commenting on the prioritization of cases. He further submitted that a sincere explanation would come within the broad contours of the term "apology"."If Bhushan's statement is read as a whole, it says he has the highest respect for the judiciary, but has a critical opinion about four Chief Justices. All of us are troubled by what has happened in this Court in the last 6 years. I am proud of many judgements of this Court, but I am also not proud of many judgments", stated Dhavan.Dhavan then went on to submit that the Court was not immune from criticism and that it was the responsibility of all to make responsible criticism. He showed the Bench a page from the Daily Mirror which had called the judges of United Kingdom as "You Fools" for their judgement in the Spycatcher Case."When your Lordships retire, there will be a spate of articles criticizing your Lordships and some congratulating. Can they be stopped? This Court can survive only on responsible criticism. In the present controversy, many persons like Justices Lokur, Kurian Joseph, Arun Shourie etc. have made comments in the public domain. "Are they also in contempt?"Dhavan submitted that there was no question of withdrawal of Bhushan's statements or exorcising his Affidavit from the record, which was a part of his defence. On the topic of whether the Court should reprimand Bhushan, Dhavan contended, "What is that the Court would tell him? When you tell him not to do it again, he will ask about what he should not do again. Can the Court ask him not to criticize the Court? Can the Court silence him?" Dhavan then stated that the only way for the Court to close the case would be to say that they had taken into account his (Bhushan) statement and though they disagreed with what he had said, they could caution him to be a little restrained in the manner in which he criticizes the Court and be sure of the facts."We are not asking...

[Breaking]'Tells Us What Is Wrong In Using The Word "Apology"': Asks Justice Mishra As SC Reserves Judgment In Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case Over Two Tweets

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags