- Prashant Bhushan posts tweets on CJI S A Bobde and the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of Contemp of court
Lawyer- activist Prashant Bhushan has been held guilty of contempt for his two tweets on Chief Justice Of India S A Bobde and the Supreme Court of India.
The sentence will be announced by the Supreme Court on the 20th of August. A three judge bench which comprised of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari delivered the verdict.
Prashant Bhushan, in an affidavit dated 3rd of August, said that he regretted on a “part of” what he had tweeted and asserted that the criticism of the top judge “done not scandalise” the court of lower its authority in any way.
Prashant Bhushan posted a tweet where he commented on a photo of the Chief Justice of India on a superbike. Bhushan, in an affidavit dated 2nd of August, said that he regretted asking why CJI Bobde was not wearing a helmet as the bike was on a stand.
The affidavit submitted on the 2nd of August by Prashant Bhushan read, “At the outset I admit that I did not notice that the bike was on a stand and therefore wearing a helmet was not required. I therefore regret that part of my tweet. However, I stand by the remaining part of what I have stated in my tweet,”
Prashant Bhushan claimed that he was merely exercising his freedom of speech and giving his opinion about the functioning of the Supreme Court of India which should not and does not amount to “obstruction of justice”, necessitating the contempt proceedings.
In the hearing before this, Advocate Dushyant Dave, Prashant Bhushan’s lawyer said that the two posts on Twitter were not against the Supreme Court of India, adding, “They are against the judges in their personal capacity regarding their conduct. They are not malicious and do not obstruct the administration of justice,” during the hearing.
The affidavit from Prashant Bhushan also read, “To bona fide critique the actions of a Chief Justice or a succession of Chief Justices cannot and does not scandalize the court, nor does it lower the authority of the court,”.