Connect with us

jagjam.com

Don’t seek mercy, will accept any penalty: Defiant Bhushan


India

Don’t seek mercy, will accept any penalty: Defiant Bhushan

NEW DELHI: Armed with the support of retired judges and buoyed by attorney general K K Venugopal’s “don’t punish him” plea, activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan on Thursday refused to apologise to avert punishment for his conviction for contempt and defiantly told the Supreme Court that he would cheerfully accept penalty without seeking the court’s mercy or…

NEW DELHI: Armed with the toughen of retired judges and buoyed by attorney overall K K Venugopal’s “don’t punish him” plea, activist-suggest

Prashant Bhushan

on Thursday refused to apologise to avert punishment for his conviction for contempt and defiantly suggested the Supreme Court docket that he would cheerfully settle for penalty without seeking the courtroom’s mercy or magnanimity.

He suggested a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari that for the the leisure three a protracted time, he had tried to uphold the majesty of the SC, “no longer as a courtier or cheerleader nonetheless as a humble guard”.

Studying out a four-paragraph statement, he acknowledged, “I accept it onerous to take note that the courtroom finds my tweet ‘has the scheme of destabilising the very foundation of this fundamental pillar of Indian democracy’. I will be capable to handiest reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any

democracy

… Failing to keep up a correspondence up would were a dereliction of responsibility, especially for an officer of the courtroom like myself.

“I will be capable to handiest humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had acknowledged in his trial: I attain no longer inquire of for mercy. I attain no longer entice magnanimity. I’m right here, due to the this truth, to cheerfully undergo any penalty that will perchance well lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the courtroom has obvious to be an offence, and what looks to me to be the top most likely responsibility of a citizen.”

The bench used to be no longer moved by the defiance and acknowledged the tone and tenor of the statement regarded to irritate the contempt. It requested Bhushan to rep “two-three days’ time and think over it and adjust it”. Justice Mishra acknowledged Bhushan could well well perchance quiet admit sooner than the courtroom “from the core of his coronary heart” that he realised his mistake of “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” and promise no longer to repeat it. The contemplate emphasised that he has by no map punished somebody for contempt in his two decade-lengthy profession.

Bhushan bluntly suggested the courtroom, “I attain no longer desire to rethink my statement.” When the bench acknowledged he could well well perchance quiet no longer blame the courtroom in a while for no longer giving him time to rethink, Bhushan acknowledged, “The statement used to be a correctly thought out and regarded as one. If the Supreme Court docket wants, I will be capable to think it over. Nonetheless it is some distance no longer likely that there can be any gargantuan alternate. I attain no longer desire to smash the courtroom’s time to any extent additional.” Nonetheless, a small bit later, he acknowledged, “I’ll consult my attorneys and search if any alternate could well well perchance moreover be made.”

The bench rejected Bhushan’s plea for deferment of sentencing till he had filed his

petition

seeking evaluation of the judgment convicting him of contempt. Nonetheless it clarified that in the tournament he used to be awarded punishment, the sentence would be kept in abeyance till the courtroom decided his evaluation petition.”

The concession did no longer decrease great ice with seasoned attorney Rajeev Dhavan, who regarded for Bhushan. He elaborately argued how the conviction used to be unfriendly. The bench countered him by observing that “freedom of speech is no longer absolute, for you, the judges or somebody. There’s a Lakshman Rekha. Being an activist does no longer suggest that you just must well well circulation that line.”

Dhavan acknowledged the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ applied to the SC as correctly, requiring balancing free speech and finding out whether whatever Bhushan acknowledged used to be accomplished with malice. He requested the bench to rep into consideration: “Who’s the person sooner than you? He has consistently highlighted corruption in public locations of work, collectively with judiciary. He has the toughen of 10,000 attorneys. Extinct judges — Justices (R M) Lodha, (Madan B) Lokur, (Kurian) Joseph and (A P) Shah — luxuriate in echoed my statements and toughen me. Are they also in contempt of SC?”

The bench pushed aside the drumming of public toughen for Bhushan and acknowledged “somewhat a pair of issues are going down. You attain no longer desire us to let you know every thing.” Whereas giving time to Bhushan to take into myth bettering his statement, the bench acknowledged, “By sentence, we could well well perchance moreover be lenient handiest when a person realises his mistake and is staunch about it. We could well well perchance overlook whatever is achieved in the past, even supposing we could well well perchance no longer take note him. Nonetheless doing 10 harmful issues can smash the hundred staunch issues one has accomplished. If doing staunch issues could well well perchance quiet condone the harmful acts, why could well well perchance quiet that parameter be no longer applicable to all?”











Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top