Thread by @legaljournalist

Supreme Court commences hearing in Prashant Bhushan's contempt case for his tweets against Court and CJI Bobde.

What is to be done? SC asks Attorney General KK Venugopal.

Retired and sitting judges have themselves made comments about Supreme Court. At least 5 judges have made comments about Supreme Court having failed to protect democracy," Attorney General KK Venugopal submits.

Attorney General: All of us have read it in newspapers. These statements would have been to tell the court that it should reform itself.

So my submissions is you should not punish Bhushan. You can warn him.

"In this case he has talked about retired judge and has generally said that democracy has failed," AG.

In case we propose to punishment what do you suggest as punishment, justice Arun Mishra to AG.

"Your lordships should tell him not to repeat it in future," AG.

Bench says Bhushan has not realised his mistake.

"He says he is not ready to apologise. We gave him time to think over and apologise. So what should we do?" Justice Arun Mishra to AG Venugopal.

I think this is one case where your lordships should forgive him and take a compassionate view. It will be greatly appreciated at the Bar and will befit the status of the court, says AG.

AG also says he has done a lot of good for institution and public good.

But you yourself filed contempt against him, justice Mishra tells AG referring to Venugopal filing contempt case against Bhushan for a remark by Bhushan that the AG had misled the court in a case.

AG: I withdrew that case.

Justice Gavai: Yes but only after he expressed regret.

AG KK Venugopal says Bhushan's statements and responses to court can be removed from record and case dropped.

But he (Bhushan) should also agree to that, says Bench.

I think it is not too late for him even now to express regret like he did in the case in which he had alleged corruption, says AG Venugopal.

Supreme Court now referring to various submissions made by Bhushan in his reply saying he has adversely commented against court.

Perhaps if he withdraws all these, then your lordships could consider forgiving him, says AG.

I don't think the court should go to the extent of punishing him. He should withdraw these allegations and your lordships should also drop the proceedings. That will be a fitting end to this whole case, says AG.

I have nothing more to say. It is upto Rajeev Dhavan to decide what his client (Bhushan) wants to do, says AG.

Bench rises for lunch. Will re-assemble at 2 pm.

Bench assembles; Hearing resumes. Rajeev Dhavan commences arguments on behalf of Prashant Bhushan.

Rajeev Dhavan says bonafides of the contemnor should be looked into. It is very important factor when it comes to sentencing.

Dhavan says he himself has written and made strong statements against Supreme Court.

When a CJI was due to retire, I referred to him as Sultan and also said why I made that statement. But no contempt of court was initiated, says Dhavan.

Statements have been made not just by lawyers but also by judges. This idea of "scandalising" court should not be subjective: Dhavan.

This institution will collapse if it does not suffer criticism. Mamata Banerjee was let off in a judgment in which Justice Arun Mishra presided on the ground that she was a politician, Dhavan points out.

This court is often criticised and it will be criticised again and again, Dhavan submits.

The judgment of August 14 convicting Bhushan itself supports Bhushan. It has some half truths and many contradictions, argues Dhavan.

Dhavan says Bhushan's stance is that he will admit to his mistake if his conscience feels he has made a mistake.

When a person is indicted for contempt, is he not expected to offer a defense? Dhavan asks.

Dhavan: An apology should not be to get out of the clutches of the court. It should be sincere.

Dhavan: What Bhushan has said is his sincere belief. All of us are troubled by what has happened in this court in the last 6 years. I am proud of many judgments of this court but I am also not proud of many judgments.

Dhavan: On issue of reprimanding Bhushan, if court asks Bhushan not to do this again, what is it that he should not do in future. Should he not criticise the court? One of the greatest critics of this court was HM Seervai.

Dhavan: Your Lordships may say that the Bar should be a little restrained in their criticism of the court and should be sure about facts. That in my opinion is what Your Lordships should say.

Justice Mishra: Suppose we decide to punish him, what should be the punishment.

Rajeev Dhavan: AG has suggested a reprimand but I would say not even a reprimand but a general statement.

Do not make Prashant Bhushan a martyr.

Dhavan: The effect of the sentence can be making Prashant Bhushan a martyr. We don't want this controversy to continue. This controversy will continue depending on the sentence that you give Bhushan.

Dhavan: Your Lordships should not just close the case but also the controversy. And that can be done by Your Lordships statesmanship.

Justice Arun Mishra says lawyers should not go to press in pending matters.

Justice Mishra: When a person like Bhushan goes to media or put tweets, then that is a problem. If a layman does it, we might not take note of it.

Justice Arun Mishra: When a person like Bhushan makes a statement, it has weight. People will believe it.

Justice Mishra: We (judges) are not separate from Bar. We have come from the Bar. But we cannot go to press to defend ourselves.

Justice Mishra: You are our spokesperson. Bar is the spokesperson of the Bench.

Justice Mishra: We tolerate fair criticism and welcome it. But we cannot go to press. I have never gone to press. We are bound by an oath.

Justice Mishra says press reporting proceedings incorrectly.

Rajeev Dhavan: Lawyers also have duty not to publicise themselves. If your lordships feel that criticism of Prashant Bhushan is not correct, then Your Lordships should say it. But Your Lordships should not punish the person.

Justice Mishra: How long can system suffer so long as judges cannot speak out.

Justice Mishra: Do not attribute motives to judges when criticising us.

Justice Mishra also asks whether it is fine to attack retired judges.

Court reserves verdict on the sentence to be awarded to Prashant Bhushan in the contempt of court case against him.