Today, the hearing commenced at 11:12 AM. Bhushan's counsel, on his behalf, requests deferment of the hearing for punishment as his client intends to file a review petition. The Court rejects and assures that the punishment announced won't be activated till the review petition is settled. Then the other counsel for Bhushan tells that once the Attorney General has spoken, he'd commence his arguments. Despite the AG indicating his readiness to give his opinion, the Court disallows.
Then, Bhushan submits a statement before the Court (complete text reproduced at the bottom). As the hearing proceeds the Court asks Prashant Bhushan to reconsider his statement. Bhushan reaffirms that he stands by his statement. The Court regardless insists that he'd nevertheless be given time. Attorney General, somehow, manages to intervene to tell that Bhushan should not be punished. Then again, he points out that he has a list of five judges of the Supreme Court who said that democracy had failed and of nine judges who had alleged corruption in the higher judiciary. He is abruptly cut short. The hearing concluded at 1:33 PM. The judgement remains to be delivered. (Ref.: < https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/prashant-bhushan-contempt-case-on-two-tweets-sc-hearing-on-sentence-live-updates-161686?infinitescroll=1> and < https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/attorney-general-requests-sc-to-not-punish-prashant-bhushan-in-contempt-case-161701?infinitescroll=1 >.) In the meanwhile there were protest demonstrations in many corners of the country. Yogendra Yadav led a Zoom meeting where leading activists and dignitaries joined in to solidarise with Bhushan. It was also live-streamed via the FB. Statement by Prashant Bhushan, Respondent 1 I have gone through the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold -- not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard – for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood. I am shocked that the court holds me guilty of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo motu notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the Court finds my tweet “has the effect of destabilizing the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must come before personal and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. 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. (Ref.: <> https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/prashant-bhushan-statement-to-supreme-court-in-contempt-case .) -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZiqQhOXDb75%2BYByoWywqHW8CrPRz3jtkkpFCyGrOJyRNA%40mail.gmail.com.
