The contempt case against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan concluded with the Supreme Court holding him guilty and imposing a token fine of Re 1. In one masterstroke, the court passed on the message it wanted to. And while the SC was being portrayed as a villain against freedom of expression, it has deftly settled the issue with a message loud and clear.
The court held that it is not afraid of sentencing him either with imprisonment or from debarring practice. It observed that the conduct of the lawyer reflects adamance and ego, which it said has no place in the system of administration of justice and a noble profession. It has emphasized the need to respect the very institution one belongs to while acknowledging the role of being fearlessly independent.
The SC on August 14 held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for the two tweets saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest. In an unprecedented action little did one realize that social media posts could have such fallouts, and snowball into a national debate over freedom of speech and fair criticism of judges versus disrespect and humiliation of the judiciary. In that context, it would be interesting to revisit the tweets of Bhushan.
The June 27 tweet said: "When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last four CJIs. The June 29 tweet said: The CJI rides a Rs 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC on lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!
Freedom of speech has been the most intricate subject that has been debated, even before India got its independence. The one rupee coin may have momentarily calmed the storm, but it has still left a chasm. Both could see victory in defeat, in their own ways, but the scars will remain.
Bhushan may have accepted the punishment "responsibly", but in the same note, he has stated that he reserves the right of review. He states that tweets were not meant to disrespect court. He says this case may draw the nation's attention to freedom of speech, judicial accountability and reform. Yes, it has done that. Buoyed by the massive public backing, Bhushan may have scored a Gandhian win, but it still doesn't become a defining moment for freedom of speech. A token fine doesn't absolve Bhushan of conviction. Irrespective of the quantum of punishment, he is held guilty of contempt and has been punished. Moreover, when the point of contention is about public utterances on the highest court of the nation, this case doesn't set a benchmark nor defines boundaries for freedom of speech against the judiciary.
>>>>>>>>
The one rupee coin may have momentarily calmed the storm, but it has still left a chasm. Both could see victory in defeat, in their own ways, but the scars will remain
