Prashant Bhushan case | Plea to uphold right of appeal in contempt case

Bhushan moves Supreme Court

September 12, 2020 10:47 pm | Updated September 13, 2020 08:28 am IST - NEW DELHI

EDS: FILE PHOTO** New Delhi: In this Friday, Nov. 15, 2019 file picture noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan addresses a press conference in New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday, Aug 14, 2020 held Bhushan guilty of contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary. (PTI Photo/Manvender Vashist)   (PTI14-08-2020_000075B)

EDS: FILE PHOTO** New Delhi: In this Friday, Nov. 15, 2019 file picture noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan addresses a press conference in New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday, Aug 14, 2020 held Bhushan guilty of contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary. (PTI Photo/Manvender Vashist) (PTI14-08-2020_000075B)

Civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan has moved the Supreme Court for a declaration upholding the right of appeal of a person found guilty of contempt.

Mr. Bhushan was recently punished for contempt with a nominal fine of ₹1 . He was found guilty of scandalising the Supreme Court with his tweets.

In his writ petition, Mr. Bhushan, represented by senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, said a person found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court cannot file an appeal. He has to accept the verdict unquestioningly. Mr. Bhushan said an “intra-court appeal” mechanism should be evolved by the court. The right to appeal a court verdict is a fundamental right.

“As a judge the power of the Supreme Court to convict and sentence the accused is unlimited and arbitrary... No one can be at once a suitor and a judge. Thus, there is a need for an intra-court appeal,” Mr. Bhushan contended.

Also read: Will pay fine to SC, reserve right to file review plea against judgement in contempt case, says Prashant Bhushan

In the alternative, the review proceedings on a finding of guilt in a contempt case should be heard by a different Bench in open court.

The petition said the court has devised guidelines for the review of death penalty cases. The curative jurisprudence by which pleas are heard on the limited grounds of natural justice was also an innovation of the Supreme Court.

“The fact that there is inherent unavoidable conflict of interest involved, and the fact that liberty of the alleged contemnor is at stake, it is of utmost importance that certain basic safeguards are designed which would reduce [though not obviate] chances of arbitrary, vengeful and high-handed decisions,” the petition said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.