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 magnanimity.
He told a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari that for the last three decades, he had tried to uphold the majesty of the SC, “not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard”.
Reading out a four-paragraph statement, he said, “I find it hard to believe that the court finds my tweet ‘has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy’. I can only reiterate that these two tweets represented my bonafide beliefs, the expression of which must be permissible in any democracy… Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself.

“I can only humbly paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: 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.”
The bench was not moved by the defiance and said the tone and tenor of the statement appeared to aggravate the contempt. It asked Bhushan to take “two-three days’ time and think over it and modify it”. Justice Mishra said Bhushan should admit before the court “from the core of his heart” that he realised his mistake of “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” and promise not to repeat it. The judge emphasised that he has never punished anyone for contempt in his two decade-long career.
Bhushan bluntly told the court, “I do not want to reconsider my statement.” When the bench said he should not blame the court later on for not giving him time to rethink, Bhushan said, “The statement was a well thought out and considered one. If the Supreme Court wants, I can think it over. But it is unlikely that there will be any substantial change. I do not want to waste the court’s time any more.” However, a little later, he said, “I will consult my lawyers and see if any change can be made.”
The bench rejected Bhushan’s plea for deferment of sentencing till he had filed his petition seeking review of the judgment convicting him of contempt. But it clarified that in the event he was awarded punishment, the sentence would be kept in abeyance till the court decided his review petition.”
The concession did not cut much ice with seasoned lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, who appeared for Bhushan. He elaborately argued how the conviction was wrong. The bench countered him by observing that “freedom of speech is not absolute, for you, the judges or anyone. There is a Lakshman Rekha. Being an activist does not mean you will cross that line.”
Dhavan said the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ applied to the SC as well, requiring balancing free speech and finding out whether whatever Bhushan said was done with malice. He asked the bench to consider: “Who is the person before you? He has consistently highlighted corruption in public offices, including judiciary. He has the support of 10,000 lawyers. Former judges — Justices (R M) Lodha, (Madan B) Lokur, (Kurian) Joseph and (A P) Shah — have echoed my statements and support me. Are they also in contempt of SC?”
The bench brushed aside the drumming of public support for Bhushan and said “a lot of things are happening. You do not want us to tell you everything.” While giving time to Bhushan to think about modifying his statement, the bench said, “When it comes to sentence, we can be lenient only when a person realises his mistake and is sincere about it. We may forget whatever is done in the past, even though we may not agree with him. But doing 10 bad things can ruin the hundred good things one has done. If doing good things should condone the bad acts, why should that parameter be not applicable to all?”