The sentencing on Prashant Bhushan’s tweets, held contemptuous by the Supreme court would be now.
Bhushan is a born anti-establishment activist-lawyer, boldly taking head on over any contentious issues, be it involving politicians or the Supreme Court Judges themselves. Like many, he tweets his mind out, sometimes unmindful of the deeper damage the tweets can do. The recent tweets of Bhushan were taken up suo-motu for hearing by the Supreme Court.
Bhushan in his first tweet criticized the Chief Justice for riding a Harley Davidson Superbike, belonging to a politician, without wearing a helmet, simultaneously while keeping the Supreme Court in a lockdown mode, thereby affecting the rights of citizens to access justice. The Court decided to segregate the tweets into two parts. The CJI was an ardent biker in his lawyer days and tried a ride in violation of the rules. A penalty levied by the authorities and paid gracefully by the CJI as the keeper of Justice system in India would have ended the controversy. The Court had initiated virtual hearings, though the bar council have expressed their reservations over the online proceedings. The Court took cognizance over ‘the denial of access to justice’ part, terming it ‘undoubtedly false, malicious and scandalous.’
The Court also took umbrage to Bhushan’s a second tweet, Bhushan criticized the role of the preceding four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court as ‘destruction’ to Indian democracy. The Court felt that the tweet “damage[s] confidence in our judicial system and demoralize[s] Judges of the highest Court by making malicious attacks”.
Prashant Bhushan was held guilty of contempt of the Court, but Bhushan held that it the tweets were in his perfect state of mind and were a reflection of his conscience, declining the either retract the tweets or tender an apology. The Court has ‘advised’ the contemnor to reconsider his stand, giving Bhushan a time for two days.
Allegations of bias, corruption, apathy and political influence have been blighting the Apex court for long. The Judges enjoy immunity from prosecution or arrest and if guilty, can resign. Otherwise only the President can remove them after long impeachment proceeding from both houses of parliament with a two-thirds majority in each house. Such hearings often end in brushing the dirt under the carpet. The exception is the removal of V. Ramaswami (SC) and Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta HC) and PD Dinakaran, the CJ of Sikkim HC who resigned before the impeachment proceedings began.
It is not the judges alone but the justice deliverance system, which loses its credibility when accusations of corruption and nepotism are levelled. Contemptuous the tweets could have been if the judges have concluded so, but the need to become transparent and accountable can be felt more important now than ever. The appointments of the judges, the approval by the ministry, the plush post-retirement engagements all reek of a stranglehold in the normal and fearless functioning of the judiciary.
Supreme court is the last hope for a litigant, and its judges the symbol of judiciousness, which should extend to their every sphere of activity and life, including personal. Prashant Bhushan can be condoned, and introspection can be initiated for internal reforms of the judiciary and make the court accessible for common men too.
Sampath Kumar
Intrépide Voix
