A Fine Line

The curious case of the contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan

Nothing captures the essence of a free democratic society as the thoughts and words of those who don’t believe in it. Eloquent defense of freedom fails to convey what its crude deprecation so easily does.

And when the fervour to subdue freedom is at its peak, the usual reservoirs of liberty also run dry. 

Much has already been said and written about the case and the court’s enthusiasm for hearing this matter, while ignoring or sitting on far more crucial cases pending before it. Many erudite voices have already expressed their anguish at the manner in which the court went about the proceedings and the skewed way in which it interpreted the law governing the matter. 

But the interim conclusion this matter , whereby the court found Mr. Bhushan guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs. 1/-  for this injury, is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. 

The court in its judgment states that it , in its magnanimity, has decided to impose this nominal fine on Mr. Bhushan. Of course, in the same breath, it goes on to prescribe an alternate sentence entailing three months’ imprisonment and suspension from the practicing before the SC for three years,should the contemnor fail to pay the fine. 

The first question that would naturally arise in this case, is whether the punishment imprisonment term and debarment are commensurate with the principal penalty of Rs. 1? 

It certainly is not. 

Interestingly, the moment the sentence was pronounced, social media was hit by a trend, where people were challenging Bhushan to show some spine and not pay the fine. Thereby, suggesting to him that he should go to jail and not practice before the SC for three years. Of course, these people were not speaking so much out of principle as they were out of derision for Bhushan. 

But what about the Supreme Court? What was it thinking before pronouncing such a lopsided sentence? 

Was the court actually betting on the ethical bind, Bhushan may feel caught up in? 

Notwithstanding what the court had in mind,it did not behoove the apex court to use the magnanimity in its order.

Even earlier, the court had stated what was wrong in apologizing. 

The above instances are representative of a feudal society where the landlord dispensed justice in his magnanimity and the serfs felt duty bound to apologize to the master. 

The Supreme Court is there to provide justice and not do favours.