SC imposes nominal fine of Re 1 on Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court

The Supreme Court Monday imposed a “nominal fine” of Re 1 on activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was convicted for criminal contempt for his two tweets against the judiciary, saying he has attempted to “denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice”.

The apex court said it was “showing magnanimity” and instead of imposing any severe punishment, it was sentencing Bhushan with a nominal fine of Re 1.

   

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said the fine be deposited with the apex court registry by September 15, failing which Bhushan would undergo a simple imprisonment of three months and debarred from practising in top court for three years.

“In our considered view, the act committed by the contemnor (Bhushan) is a very serious one. He has attempted to denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice of which he himself is a part,” said the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari.

“At the cost of repetition, we have to state that the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up,” the bench said in its 82-page judgement on quantum of punishment.

Pronounced by Justice Mishra, who is going to demit office on September 2, the judgement does not contain the name of the author-judge.

The apex court had on August 14 held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary and maintained that they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in public interest.

In its verdict delivered on Monday, the bench noted that on several occasions it had not only given opportunity but also directly or indirectly persuaded Bhushan to express regret in the matter. It said that Attorney General K K Venugopal had also suggested that “it was in the fitness of things that a contemnor expresses regret and withdraws the allegation made in the affidavit in reply, which request was not heeded to by the contemnor (Bhushan).”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × 3 =