Prashant Bhushan Incident

The article has been written by Aashika Aggarwal pursuing BBALLB (H) from Amity University, Gurgaon.

Introduction

Prashant Bhushan is an unmistakable social equality legal advisor and is one of the establishing individuals from the AAM AADMI PARTY (AAP). He hails from a family with a history of governmental issues. Bhushan was conceived in 1956 and finishes his investigations in law at the Allahabad University. He is a graduate of IIT Madras and Princeton University. While still an understudy, he composed a book on Indira Gandhi’s political decision in 1974, the case that shook India.

Bhushan’s open activism is notable and he has recorded a few PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’S (PIL) against human rights issues. He was established in AAP in 2012 with Mr. Arvind Kejriwal and held different portfolios. In 2015, in any case, he had a drop out with Kejriwal sir over his fascism sort of rule and was before long expelled from the gathering alongside another removed AAP pioneer Yogendra Yadav.

Bhushan got assaulted at his chambers in the Supreme Court. Three people reportedly stormed into Mr. Bhushan’s chamber and began beating him while he was in the midst of a TV interview. Mr. Bhushan was slapped and kicked. He fell on the floor, his glasses fell near him, and his shirt was torn before other lawyers rushed to help him. The police had arrested one of the assaulters. The other managed to escape. Mr. Bhushan had been taken to a clinic for registration. They were stating that have offered a few remarks on Kashmir to which they were taking the complaint. I have said that a choice ought to be held in Kashmir.

Judgment by Supreme Court of India

PIL activist Prashant Bhushan has been found guilty on charges of contempt of court by the Supreme Court of India. The order was passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra. The proceedings were initiated suo moto by the court following tweets by the activist on the 22 and 29 of June.

One of his tweets was about the role of the last four Chief Justices of India and the other about the current CJI riding an expensive motorcycle while the court was in lockdown. While Bhushan later expressed some regret, the bench on Friday held that the latter tweet was not against the CJI in his individual capacity but as the head of the Judiciary. It noted that Bhushan not only himself appeared as a lawyer during this period but also challenged the FIR against him. The court refused to accept his tweet as it was written out of anguish.

It dismissed the contention that the tweet was just a matter of feeling, although a few specialists including previous Supreme Court judges have said or composed comparative things. On 11 January 2018, the four then senior-most appointed authorities of the Supreme Court had held a question and answer session to state that the validity of the most elevated legal executive is in question. They attested that the majority rules system would not make due as an autonomous legal executive is the sign of a fruitful vote based system. The Supreme Court had endured such a solid prosecution of itself, and afterward CJI Justice Dipak Mishra. Presently, it has decided not to disregard tweets by an attorney lobbyist. It said that unselfishness can’t be extended to such a degree, they may add up to shortcoming in managing a malignant, profane, determined assault on the very establishment of the organization of legal executive and in this manner harming the very establishment of the majority rules system.

However, as it so happens, it does not appear that Bhushan has always been opposed to the law criminalizing contempt of court. For instance, when former Justice of the Calcutta High Court CS KARNAN was jailed by the Supreme Court on charges of contempt of court, Prashant Bhushan hailed the landmark decision where a sitting High Court Judge was sentenced to imprisonment for the first time. There are several incidents in the past where Prashant Bhushan had claimed that others had committed the offense of contempt of court. But when the same law was applied against him, he went ahead to challenge the law itself.

Prior, the Supreme Court of India took suo moto against Bhushan’s wild conduct via web-based networking media and started disdain of court body of evidence against him and Twitter India. The summit-court gave a show-cause notice to the senior promoter asking him to clarify for what reason moves ought not to be made against him on the scorn of court charges.

“We hit Prashant Bhushan hard in his chamber in incomparable court,” a post announced. As he was driven away, the attacker who was captured said that they had gone to converse with Mr. Bhushan about a position he had taken on the Kashmir issue- “We won’t let anybody affront our saints,” he said. The man, who said his name was INDER VERMA, is being addressed at the Tilak Marg Police Headquarters. The other two, TEJINDER SINGH BHULLA and VISHNU GUPTA, are on the loose.

Home Minister P CHIDAMBARAM has censured the assault and sent a delegate to meet Mr. Bhushan at the hospital. He additionally talked about the assault with Delhi Police Commissioner B K Gupta. Then, the Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh guaranteed one of the three men who assaulted Mr. Bhushan was a young laborer for the BJP. The BJP quickly denied the charges.

It rejected the argument that the tweet has not interfered with the administration of justice. It relied on Brahma Prakash Sharma (1953) in which a constitution bench held that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been actual interference with the administration of justice. The bench also relied on C K DAPHTARY (1971) in which the court had held that we are unable to agree with him that a severe attack on a judge in respect of a judgement or past conduct has no adverse effect on the due administration of justice. This sort of attack in a country like ours has the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary.