Thread by @utkarsh_aanand

2020 suo motu criminal contempt case against #PrashantBhuahan begins.

Sr adv Rajeev Dhavan seeks permission to read out the supplementary statement by Bhushan.

But Justice Mishra says: "What's the point of reading it when we have already read it."

SC decides to hear Attorney General KK Venugopal first. "Tell us what is to be done. We expected a different statement."

AG starts by saying several sitting & retired judges have commented upon corruption in the higher judiciary.

#PrashantBhushan

Justice Mishra: That matter, we already adjourned earlier & sent it to an appropriate bench.

AG: These statements were perhaps only to tell the court about the facts and ask for reforms. It is a fit case to forgive him (#PrashantBhushan).

Give him a warning and let him go, Venugopal submits in the #SupremeCourt .

Justice Mishra asks AG to refrain from citing comments by former judges of the #SupremeCourt or media reports.

"We shouldn't be getting influenced by media reports. We will rather hear what the AG has to say."

Mishra J to AG: What should be the punishment to him, in your opinion.

AG: A warning to tell him 'please don't repeat this in future.

#PrashantBhushan

Mishra J: There is a positive part of the statement by #PrashantBhushan in which he says he has faith in this institution. But at the same time he says, he won't apologise since be hasn't made any mistake. Everyone makes mistake but he person must also realise it. What to do now?

Mishra J: If a person says he didn't make a mistake and he won't apologise for it despite repeated opportunities, what will be the purpose of saying don't do it again. It is not about us or him. It is about the institution after all.

#PrashantBhushan
#SupremeCourt

AG: I myself wanted to file a contempt against #PrashantBhushan when two CBI officers were fighting and he said I fabricated documents. But after he expressed regret, I withdrew. Let the democracy follow in this case when he has exercised his free speech.

AG: It will be tremendously appreciated if the court leaves it at that. Even if he says he hasn't done anything wrong, this court should take a compassionate view. I speak for the Bar also.

Mishra J: If he believes he has done no wrong, what's the purpose of this warning?

Gavai J: Mr AG, you too filed a contempt against Mr Bhushan and withdrew it only after he expressed regret. But that's not the case here.

Mishra J: He has made several disparaging remarks against this institution, judges of this court. Even in #Ramjanmabhoomi, only one judge has retired, rest of them are still in this court.

#PrashantBhushan

AG: He won't do this again.

Mishra J: Let him say this. It was so simple. The case was about two tweets but he later have colours to these tweets..filed additional explanations and arguments.

AG: Let his response be not considered

Mishra J: How can we not? Everyone is criticising us that we haven't considered his response which according to us is even more derogatory. Now if we remove it, we will be blamed we deleted this on our own. They still aren't asking for this

AG: He has expressed regret in the 2009 matter. Let him say this in the present matter too and say he expresses regret. That will be the statesmanship.

Mishra J: Ld AG, please read his reply. See what he has said, #SupremeCourt has collapsed. Isn't that objectionable?

AG: No. #SupremeCourt has done so much for the poor, undertrials. But this wasn't the subject matter of the case against him. Let him express regret.

Gavai J: And for that, we had given him 3 days.

Mishra J: He rather says consider my defence.

AG: Although it is too late for him to go back on what he has said, he can still express regret.

Mishra J cites another part from Bhushan's reply with allegations against judges.

This talks about bias in the impeachment against CJI case.

AG: That was rightly rejected.

Mishra J: His reply says this court is becoming executive-minded. What do you say to this? How do we not consider all this? Prioritisation of cases has also been adversely commented upon. Ayodhya case has been commented upon. Which judge is left out, sitting or retired?

AG on impeachment move: It was politically motivated.

AG: The question is what will be the purpose of inflicting punishment. Let them withdraw this affidavit.

Mishra J: But they have been asking us to consider this.

AG: Let this court show statesmanship and not use the powers of the contemp because of this affidavit.

Mishra J: For that they will have to withdraw it.

AG: Yes, they should withdraw all their statements.bibhave nothing more to say.

#SupremeCourt takes a break for 30 min.

Hearing resumes.

Sr adv Rajeev Dhavan starts by saying he wears two hats.

"My duty as an officer of the court isn't synonymous with my duty as a lawyer for my client. I can't shut my eyes from either of the two."

#PrashantBhushan

Dhavan on sentencing: This isn't an offender who doesn't acknowledge his duty towards the court. He has contributed so much to this court. AG is right in pointing that out.

#SupremeCourt

Dhavan: I myself described former CJI JS Khehar as a Sultan in the court and I demonstrated why and how. There was no contempt case against me.

Dhavan goes on to cite his articles, books & comments to ask whether all that would mean scandalising the court.

Dhavan reminds Justice Mishra, as a judge in the Calcutta High Court, how he let go of Mamata Banerjee after she said all judges were corrupt.

"This institution must have criticism, & not just criticism but extreme criticism. Your shoulders are broad enough."

Dhavan: Another question is whether a defence can be a factor in determination of the sentence.

This is about Bhushan's reply affidavit in defence to the contempt notice.

#SupremeCourt

Dhavan: If we read the last order that we give him time to submit an unconditional apology, it looks like as if a contemnor is coerced to give an apology so that it gets over. No court can pass an order like this. It was an exercise in coercion. This is wrong jurisprudence.

Dhavan: You must read the entire statement by #PrashantBhushan. You can't read it selectively or in part.

Dhavan is now reading out from Bhushan's supplementary statement to buttress his contentions.

#SupremeCourt

Dhavan: If I am indicted for contempt tomorrow, what do you expect me to do? Not raise a defence? You cited some pages & said this is wrong, this is wrong. I can take you back to those pages & say all those were his bonafide beliefs.

#PrashanthBhushan

Power cut at Dhavan's residence and he gets disconnected.

Mishra J: Attorney, there is no light.

AG: He has thrown so much light already.

Everyone is waiting for restoration of electricity at Dhavan's residence.

Dhavan reconnects: "Nobody can be forced to retract from what he believes to be his bonafide belief."

Dhavan cites Bhushan's tweets to say he has been expressing his concerns as an officer of the court.

Dhavan: If Bhushan's statement is read as a whole, it says he has highest regard for this institution but he has his opinion about last 4 CJIs & the manner in which this court has gone wrong. We criticise this court when we feel sincere about this institution.

Dhavan: This court should invite criticism. It is the duty of all of us to make responsible criticism. Harley Davidson is hardly a criticism when this is in public domain.

He shows a Daily Mirror front page with a carricature of judges being called as 'You fools'.

This court can only survive on the basis of string criticism, says Dhavan.

"Sometimes we are not wrong but wrongly perceived. Justices Lodha, Lokur & Kurian, Shourie said the same thing. They should also be then convicted on contempt."

Dhavan: Convicting judgment must be recalled. Apology can not be coerced.

"This was not scurrilous, this was a strong criticism of this court which is shared by several others in this country."

#PrashanthBhushan

Dhavan: When you say don't do it again, he is entitled to ask what is it that I don't do it again. Such reprimand or bald warning is too broad and shouldn't be done. One cannot be silenced forever.

"A message that he should be little restrained in future should be enough."

Dhavan submits that a judgment asking #PrashanthBhushan to be a "little restrained" in future when he criticises the courts should be like statesmanship and that this will go a long way in sending a right message.

Dhavan concludes

Dhavan: If you want to hear Mr Bhushan, he could speak.

Mishra J: Why to bother him..

Mishra J: If we decide to punish him, what should be the punishment?

Dhavan: A general message, not even a reprimand

Dhavan: If you want to bar him from practise, you will have to hear him first.

If you want to impose a jail term, my advise would be don't make #PrashantBhushan a martyr. Like what happened after Babri was demolished & Kalyan Singh was convicted of contempt.

Dhavan: Don't make #PrashanthBhushan a martyr, repeats Dhavan saying this controversy will continue depending on what punishment this court gives to him. And this controversy will end only if this court shows statesmanship.

#SupremeCourt

Sr adv CU Singh is also given a chance to speak as an officer of the court. Singh supports AG in closing the case.

Mishra J: It was painful to read his reply in justification if his tweets. It was absolutely improper.

Mishra J: There is a difference between an officer of the court and a politician. I am not commenting on Mr Bhushan. But that's what is happening now a days. You go to press even in sub judice matters, make all kinds of comments when the court is already hearing it.

Mishra J: If someone with a standing of 30 years, like #PrashantBhushan, says something, people tend to believe him. They will think whatever he is saying is correct. Had it been someone else, it was easier to ignore but when Mr Bhushan says something, it has some effect.

Mishra J: It is about the system. If we are going to destroy each other, who will have faith in this institution? You have to be tolerant, see what the court is doing and why. Don't just attack. Judges can't go to press to defend themselves or explain.

#PrashantBhushan

Mishra J: Whatever we have to say, we have to write in our judgments. There are so many things but do we have to go to press? I will never do that. That's the ethics for judges. If we are going to fight each other, pull each other down, we will finish this institution.

Mishra J: Haven't people been criticising us? So many people criticise us but how many people have we convicted or punished? There is another case against Mr Bhushan pending since 2009,has he been punished there? I have to demit office & it is painful I have to deal with all this

Dhavan: I completely agree that petitions should never go to press before they are heard by this court.

Gavai J: Will you justify statements by a lawyer to media about a case he has appeared in?

Dhavan: This shouldn't
be done. I never did it after I appeared in #Ayodhya case

Dhavan: Say in the judgment about the kind of code people should follow but the idea is not to silence Bhushan. A reprimand may have repercussions not clear at this stage. Please say in the judgment we don't agree with Mr Bhushan but a code should be followed.

#SupremeCourt

AG: About his tweet on retd judges, can anything be said whether whatever has been said is correct or not. We cannot possibly go into this aspect without views of those judges. That would mean an inquiry which will go and on. Bhushan can't be punished till this inquiry concludes

AG: So my suggestion would be to give a quietus to this matter without getting into that exercise.

Mishra J: But there have been allegations against the sitting judges too. Should we call all judges here?

Judges are condemned, their families are humiliated and they can't even speak. You are the leader of the bar. We expect you to be impartial. You may have love & affection for anyone but we want you to be fair. Don't take sides: Mishra J

Mishra J: For how long the system will suffer all this. I am retiring in a few days. Will it be okay if you or others start attacking me? Why to say you can say anything against retired judges?

#PrashantBhushan
#SupremeCourt

Dhavan: What's so bad in apologising? If someone has made a mistake, what's wrong in seeking an apology? If you have hurt someone, why can't you apologise? I am not commenting on Mr Bhushan right now. You go on to the extent of quoting Mahatma Gandhi but you can't apologise.

#SupremeCourt reserves its verdict on punishment to #PrashantBhushan.

Mishra J: We thank you, Dr Dhavan. Even #PrashantBhushan has shown respect in some part of his statement.