New Delhi, Aug 24, 2020: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on August 24 refused to offer an apology to the Supreme Court for his two tweets against the judiciary saying what he expressed represented his bona fide belief which he continues to hold.

An insincere apology would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution, Bhushan said in his supplementary statement filed in the suo motu contempt case against him by the top court, taking note of advocate Anuj Saxena’s complaint.

An apology for expression of beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere, Bhushan said.

On August 20, the top court had granted time until August 24 to Bhushan to reconsider his defiant statement refusing to apologize and tender unconditional apology for contemptuous tweets against the judiciary and rejected his submission that quantum of punishment be decided by another bench.

Bhushan said as an officer of court he believes as a duty to speak up when he believes there is a deviation from its sterling record.

“Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples’ rights.

“My tweets represented this bona fide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court. Therefore, an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere.”

Bhushan further said that an apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made, adding that he believes the Supreme Court is the last bastion of hope for the protection of fundamental rights, the watchdog institutions and indeed for constitutional democracy itself.

“It has rightly been called the most powerful court in the democratic world, and often an exemplar for courts across the globe. Today in these troubling times, the hopes of the people of India vest in this Court to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution and not an untrammelled rule of the executive”, he said.

The activist-lawyer said that he has never stood on ceremony when it comes to offering an apology for any mistake or wrongdoing on his part and it has been a privilege for him to have served this institution and bring several important public interest causes before it.

I live with the realization that I have received from this institution much more than I have had the opportunity to give it. I cannot but have the highest regard for the institution of the Supreme Court, he said.

Bhushan in his two-page supplementary statement said that it is with deep regret that he read the August 20 order of this court as at the hearing the court had asked him to take 2-3 days to reconsider the statement he made in the court.

However, the order subsequently states: We have given time to the contemnor to submit an unconditional apology, if he so desires, he said.

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

He faces simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to 2,000 rupees or with both as punishment.

Source: telegraphindia.com

The text of Prashant Bhushan:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

SUO MOTO CONTEMPT (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF:
IN RE:
VERSUS
PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR/ APPLICANT

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT BY PRASHANT BHUSHAN, RESPONDENT NO. 1

It is with deep regret that I read the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 20th of August. At the hearing the court asked me to take 2-3 days to reconsider the statement I made in the court.

However, the order subsequently states: “We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires.” I have never stood on ceremony when it comes to offering an apology for any mistake or wrongdoing on my part. It has been a privilege for me to have served this institution and bring several important public interest causes before it. I live with the realization that I have received from this institution much more than I have had the opportunity to give it. I cannot but have the highest regard for the institution of the Supreme Court.

I believe that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of hope for the protection of fundamental rights, the watchdog institutions and indeed for constitutional democracy itself. It has rightly been called the most powerful court in the democratic world, and often an exemplar for courts across the globe. Today in these troubling times, the hopes of the people of India vest in this Court to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution and not an untrammeled rule of the executive.

This casts a duty, especially for an officer of this court like myself, to speak up, when I believe there is a deviation from its sterling record. Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples’ rights.

My tweets represented this bonafide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court. Therefore, an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere. An apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made. This is especially so when I have made the statements bonafide and pleaded truths with full details, which have not been dealt with by the Court. If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem.

Filed by: KAMINI JAISWAL
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
Date: 24.08.2020
New Delhi