Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The trial of Prashant Bhushan: narrative flexibility at the Indian Supreme Court

11/8/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nihal Sahu
Nihal is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Candidate at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies in India, and serves as the Managing Editor (Blog) of the NUALS Law Journal. At the moment, Nihal is deeply interested in the relationship between religion and the Indian state. 
The conviction and sentencing of Prashant Bhushan - one of India’s leading liberal lawyers - for contempt of court was deeply troubling. The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment comes at a critical moment in India’s constitutional history, marked by serious concerns about whether the Court is fulfilling its duty as a protector of civil liberties. The Bhushan case, while dispiriting, is not entirely unprecedented. Politicians and writers critical of the Court have been prosecuted for contempt before. However, the case is still worth examining because it serves as a reminder that institutions, including courts, are merely, to paraphrase Emerson, the lengthened shadows of men[1]. It reminds us that the judicial office is not somehow transformative, that judges do not abandon their prejudices when they don the robe. ​
The contempt petition was based on two tweets by Bhushan, and the proceedings that followed were marked by procedural irregularities [2].  The first tweet, made on June 27th, read as follows: “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a  formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of  the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more  particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.” The second tweet, made on 29th June, read: “CJI [Chief Justice of India] rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!” 
Under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt through a publication must (or at least must be capable of) [s]candalising and lowering the authority of the court, or prejudice or interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding, or obstruct the administration of justice [3]. Bhushan’s reply was thorough – the document is 134 pages long, with 463 pages in annexures – and more indictment than defense. [4] It begins by making a distinction; the Chief Justice (or even a succession of the Chief Justices) is not the Court, and therefore criticism of the Chief Justice does not amount to contempt of Court. The reply also had the expected selections from the canon: Seervai’s position that ‘a judge who makes public pronouncements which throw grave doubt on his impartiality, himself becomes an offender against the administration of justice,’ Lord Atkins’s ‘justice is not a cloistered virtue,’ Justice Krishna Iyer’s expectation that the constitutional courts ‘must vigilantly protect free speech even against judicial umbrage’ and Lord Denning’s emphatic ‘[w]e do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.’ 
Stringent criticism of the CJI, Bhushan noted, was hardly new. In 2018, the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court crossed the rubicon and held a press conference  alleging that the CJI was not fulfilling his functions impartially [5]. Justice Kurien Joseph gave interviews claiming that the “CJI was being remote-controlled” [6].  The chilling effect of the Court’s recent freedom of speech decisions have been widely criticized even by members of the Court, with even sitting Justices of the Supreme Court drawing attention to the dangers of suppressing dissent as protests swept the country earlier this year. 
But Bhushan’s claim in his affidavit — his written reply to the contempt petition -- was an institutional critique as well; a three-fold claim that: “a) democracy has been substantially destroyed during the last six years; b) by its acts of commissions and omissions, the Supreme Court has allowed the emasculation of our democracy; and c) the role played by the last four CJIs has been very critical in the above mentioned process.” The remaining 96 pages of the affidavit are both defense and accusation, citing a litany of omissions and misdeeds. 
The Court convicted Bhushan on 14th August in a 108-page judgment [7]. The judgment acknowledges the existence of Bhushan’s Affidavit-in-reply, but accomplishes little else.  On the day the judgment was delivered, Gautam Bhatia wrote that “there is no legal reasoning, and therefore nothing to analyse” [8]. The Bar was nearly united in their denunciation. Navroz Seervai described it as “clearly erroneous, both in its reasoning and its analysis and interpretation of the contempt jurisdiction” [9]. Karuna Nundy tweeted that it was a “blow to the rule of law itself” [10]. Indira Jaising predicted “a bleak future for free speech” [11]. 
On 21st August 2020, Bhushan’s sentencing hearing took place. During the hearing, the Attorney-General pleaded with the bench to rethink its decision. Dhavan, Bhushan’s lawyer, asserted repeatedly that “truth is an absolute defence.” [12] Bhushan made a statement, quoting Gandhi, that has now become famous: “I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.” [13] After multiple attempts to persuade Bhushan to recant, the Supreme Court reserved sentencing and delayed its decision. Op-eds and editorials argued that the bench had backed itself into a corner and committed itself to turning Bhushan into a martyr [14]. The Attorney-general echoed the same concerns at the sentencing hearings, pleading that the bench exercise “judicial statesmanship” [15]. 
The Supreme Court sentenced Bhushan on August 31, 2020, requiring him to pay a symbolic fine of one Rupee. [16] If he did not pay the fine, he would have to face three months of imprisonment and a three-year ban from practicing in the Supreme Court. If Bhushan did pay the token fine, as he did, he could be accused of compromising his principles and publicly conceding guilt. And Bhushan could claim victory, having gotten off without even the customary slap on the wrist. This was narrative perfection. 
On other occasions, Justice Mishra, who was heading the Bench, has expressed his disdain for a “lobby” of bloggers and writers who seek to “destabilize” the judiciary [17]. Bhushan’s sentencing does not match the court’s ethos that public opinion should not influence its decision-making. His sentence was not designed to punish or deter, but instead to craft a narrative and prevent the creation of a martyr.  This decision was not an exercise in judicial statesmanship; it was an exercise in tactical acumen. 
But what does it mean to say that a constitutional court has achieved this kind of narrative flexibility? We often hear concerns about motivated reasoning, where legal reasoning is directed towards a desired outcome, instead of impartially applying a rule. But what happened in the trial of Prashant Bhushan was not quite motivated reasoning. It was arbitrariness. The Court, as an institution, has become sentient and entered the territory of narrative, with a brand of impulsive political dexterity that should not be acceptable from a government, let alone the judicial branch. 
The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
[1] Emerson, Ralph Waldo Selected Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin American Library, 1982).
[2] V. Venkatesan, “In Prashant Bhushan's Contempt Case, an Issue of Procedural Fairness Comes to the Fore,” The Wire, August 6, 2020,  https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-prashant-bhushan-contempt-procedure-fairness.
[3] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[4] Affidavit in Reply on behalf of Respondent No. 1, In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 (filed August 2, 2020), https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-380215.pdf. 
[5] “Democracy is in danger’: Watch the historic press conference held by four Supreme Court judges”, Scroll.in, https://scroll.in/video/864863/democracy-is-in-danger-watch-the-historic-press-conference-held-by-four-supreme-court-judges.
[6] “Ex-CJI Dipak Misra was remote-controlled by external influence: Former Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph”, Financial Express, December 4, 2018, https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ex-cji-dipak-misra-was-remote-controlled-by-external-influence-former-supreme-court-judge-kurian-joseph/1402910/.
[7] In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 (2020), https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14323/14323_2020_32_1502_23453_Judgement_14-Aug-2020.pdf.
[8] Gautam Bhatia, ‘Contempt of Court and Freedom of Speech: An Analysis of the Prashant Bhushan Judgment’, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, August 14, 2020, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/08/14/contempt-of-court-and-freedom-of-speech-an-analysis-of-the-prashant-bhushan-judgment/. 
[9] “SC's Verdict Against Prashant Bhushan Will Have 'Chilling Effect' on Free Speech: Lawyers”, The Wire, August 17, 2020, https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-prashant-bhushan-contempt-of-court-guilty-free-speech-chilling-effect-lawyers-statement.
[10] Karuna Nundy (@karunanundy) , “The line in Shakespeare's Henry the VI, ‘The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’ is - contrary to popular perception - about removing  bulwarks against totalitarianism. @pbhushan1 threatened with prison for two tweets critiqueing SC is a blow to the rule of law itself.”, Twitter, August 14, 2020, https://twitter.com/karunanundy/status/1294178615832260609. 
[11] “‘Bleak Future’: Lawyers, Academics Slam SC’s Ruling on Bhushan”, The Quint, August 14, 2020, https://www.thequint.com/news/law/prashant-bhushan-guilty-contempt-case-supreme-court-reactions-indira-jaising-sitaram-yechury.
[12] Utkarsh Anand (@utkarsh_aanand), “Dhavan: Truth is an absolute defence. I can plead this at any stage of the proceedings. Even if I hadn't filed this affidavit, I can still claim truth as defense. Dhavan takes name of one CJI from Bhushan's affidavit. Mishra J asks Dhavan not to take names. #PrashantBhushan”, Twitter, August 20, 2020, https://twitter.com/utkarsh_aanand/status/1296339926946967552?s=20.
[13] Supplementary Statement by Prashant Bhushan, Respondent 1, In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 (filed August 24, 2020).
[14] ‘Supreme Court's 'Intolerant Side': Newspapers Side With Prashant Bhushan in Contempt Case’, The Wire, September 1, 2020, https://thewire.in/media/supreme-courts-intolerant-side-newspapers-side-with-prashant-bhushan-in-contempt-case.
[15] ‘AG, Dhavan call for judicial statesmanship as SC reserves order in Bhushan’s sentencing’, The Leaflet, August 25, 2020, https://www.theleaflet.in/ag-dhavan-call-for-judicial-statesmanship-as-sc-reserves-order-in-bhushans-sentencing/#.
[16] Sentencing Judgment of August 31, 2020, In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 (2020), https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14323/14323_2020_33_1504_23746_Judgement_31-Aug-2020.pdf
[17] Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘Lobby targeting judiciary via sponsored articles: Justice Arun Mishra’, The Hindu, October 16, 2019, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lobby-targeting-judiciary-via-sponsored-articles-justice-mishra/article29713939.ece. 

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​