All is well, but matter has not ended

Both the Supreme Court, which proceeded suo moto against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court, and the lawyer, who denied he had committed any contempt, have reasons to be vindicated by the way the case has ended, for the time being. The court found Bhushan guilty of the charge and punished him. Bhushan accepted the punishment, still maintaining that he had done no wrong. The court had sought an apology from him which he was not ready to proffer, telling the court he was ready to accept any punishment it imposed on him. He has now accepted the punishment, and thus stuck to his position, without accepting the ruling that he is guilty. By making the token payment of Re 1 that the court prescribed, he was only submitting to the authority of the court, which in any case he had not challenged, and which any citizen of the country has to accept and respect.

Though the case before the three-judge bench has concluded, the issue has not found closure. Bhushan has decided to go in for a review petition in the court. There was an informed and extensive public debate on the issues involved in the case after the Supreme Court took up the case. That showed wide support for Bhushan’s position and recognition of the need to refrain from a literal and narrow interpretation of the contempt of court provisions from jurists, lawyers and others. It also engendered a healthy discussion on the role and status of the judiciary. Delivering the punishment to Bhushan, the court said that “both the tweets, coupled with averments in the reply affidavit, are capable of shaking the confidence of the public in the institution as a whole”. The view may not be readily shared.

It would have enhanced the prestige of the court if it had ignored the tweets that mentioned the court, former chief justices and the present Chief Justice of India (CJI). Contempt of court provisions are at best vague and found their place in the statute book when the idea of citizens’ rights was not as strong as it is now. In the jurisprudence of all modern democracies, the rights of citizens are held more important than the privileges of institutions of State. So, most democracies consider freedom of speech more important than the protective privileges of institutions like courts and parliament which are decided and enforced by these very same institutions. Though both the court and Bhushan stuck to their positions and Bhushan has accepted the punishment, he may claim a moral victory after the entire episode.