Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan told the Supreme Court on Thursday that he did no longer tweet in “absence mindedness” [sic] and it can presumably perhaps even be insincere and contemptuous on his half to produce an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and is calm his bona fide perception.
Bhushan, after the Supreme Court rejected his plea that the arguments on quantum of sentence be heard by any other top courtroom bench, acknowledged his tweets were “nothing nonetheless a runt strive to discharge” what he regarded as to be his “most practical accountability at this juncture within the historical past of our republic.”
The head courtroom on 14 August had held Bhushan responsible of legal contempt for his derogatory tweets towards the judiciary announcing they are able to’t be acknowledged to be a blinding criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made within the public interest.
The next is the paunchy textual command material of Bhushan’s direct within the apex courtroom.
I basically relish long past in the course of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. I am pained that I basically were held responsible of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I basically relish tried to uphold — no longer as a courtier or cheerleader nonetheless as a humble guard — for over three a protracted time, at some private and knowledgeable impress.
I am pained, no longer due to I will be punished, nonetheless due to I basically were grossly misunderstood. I am apprehensive that the courtroom holds me responsible of “malicious, scurrilous, calculated assault” on the institution of administration of justice. I am dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion with out providing any proof of my motives to open such an assault.
I relish to admit that I am upset that the courtroom did no longer bag it main to wait on me with a replica of the complaint on the
foundation of which the suo motu survey was issued, nor learned it main to reply to the command averments made by me in my reply affidavit or the moderately plenty of submissions of my counsel.
I bag it exhausting to factor in that the Court finds my tweet “has the enact of destabilizing the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy”. I will fully reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is natty for healthy functioning of judiciary itself.
I factor in that start criticism of any institution is main in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional drawl. We dwell through that moment in our historical past when higher ideas must trump routine responsibilities, when saving the constitutional drawl must come prior to private and knowledgeable niceties, when considerations of the most up-to-date must no longer will be found within the methodology of discharging our accountability in the direction of the future. Failing to talk up would were a dereliction of accountability, especially for an officer of the courtroom treasure myself.
My tweets were nothing nonetheless a runt strive to discharge what I regarded as to be my most practical accountability at this juncture within the historical past of our republic. I did no longer tweet in a match of absence mindedness. It would be insincere and contemptuous on my half to produce an apology for the tweets that expressed what was and is calm my bonafide perception.
Therefore, I will fully humbly paraphrase what the daddy of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had acknowledged in his trial: I assemble no longer inquire of for mercy. I assemble no longer charm to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully undergo any penalty that would possibly perhaps presumably perhaps lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has fantastic to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the ideal accountability of a citizen.
The textual command material has been reproduced and has no longer been edited by Firstpost for vogue or command material.