Prashant Bhushan and the questions unanswered.

Who is Prashant Bhushan? Prashant Bhushan is a Public Interest Lawyer in the Supreme Court of India What were his controversial tweets about?

1. Mr Bhushan had tweeted a picture of CJI Mr Sharad A. Bobde on a motorcycle belonging to a politician, notably without a mask and a helmet on. His tweet also included criticism that the Supreme Court was in 'lockdown mode' and affected citizens' access to justice.

2. The Supreme Court viewed this tweet as 'false, malicious and scandalous'. The question here, is that was the intent of the tweet correctly interpreted? Mr Bhushan clearly stated to look at the tweet 'contextually'. The fact was that the Chief Justice had kept the functioning of the Court restricted due to the pandemic, but was himself out without a mask, and a helmet. Furthermore, his point that the citizens' access to justice was restricted was true as well, due to the lessened functioning hours of the court.

3. Bhushan's second tweet mentioned the role of four previous chief justices in what he termed as the 'destruction' of Indian democracy.

The Court described this tweet as 'demoralizing' and attacking the judges. The Court did not stop to verify the claims, whether they could actually be true? The CJI's have faced public criticism in the last, from their colleagues too. How is this scenario any different?  Charges against Prashant Bhushan:

Bhushan was charged with Criminal Contempt of Court.  The Court asked him to pay a fine of Re. 1, failing to do which would result in jail for a three-month term as well as debarment from his practice.

Bhushan accepted to pay the fine but also hinted filing a review plea against the order. A person is charged with criminal contempt when their action lowers a court's authority, obstructs it's proceedings or interferes with its administration. In Bhushan' case, the Court said his tweets demeaned the Court's authority.

When previous Supreme Court judges also have mentioned corruption in the Court, their statements have been of similar nature to Bhushan's. The question stands, they hadn't been convicted, so why was Prashant Bhushan?

The fact that the Court charged him with contempt displays its intolerance, it's the inability to take criticism. In the case of criminal contempt, there must be a trial. The convicted should be given all opportunity to voice their side. Unfortunately, none of this took place in Mr Bhushan's case.

Mr Venugopal, Attorney General when consulted, too came out in Bhushan's support. The Court chose not to listen to Mr Venugopal when they punished Prashant Bhushan. The series of events displays that the Court is not open to any scrutiny. In a democratic country, raising valid questions against an authority shouldn't evoke punishment? Well, diverting attention from the truth does not make it any more of a lie. Will justice ever prevail? Will we become an intolerant country, hushing those who dare expose the facade of injustice?

The question remains unanswered.

---

Writer: Juhi Goyal

#prashantbhushan