[ad_1]
New Delhi:
Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan has moved the Supreme Court looking for the precise to attraction towards his conviction final month in a prison contempt case, arguing there are possibilities of “arbitrary, vengeful and high-handed decisions” in prison contempt instances as a result of the court docket was the aggrieved social gathering.
Arguing that the precise of attraction was a “fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and is also guaranteed under international law”, Mr Bhushan mentioned: “This acts as a vital safeguard against wrongful conviction and would truly enable the provision of truth as a defence”.
Mr Bhushan, 63, who was discovered responsible of contempt of court docket – for tweets criticising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the highest court docket – and fined Re 1, additionally mentioned he wished his plea to be heard by a bigger and completely different bench.
“In such cases, considering the fact there is inherent unavoidable conflict of interest… and the fact that liberty of the alleged contemnor is at stake, it is of utmost importance that certain basic safeguards… which would reduce (though not obviate) chances of arbitrary, vengeful and high handed decisions,” his plea mentioned, in keeping with information company PTI.
Under the current statutory scheme, an individual convicted for prison contempt has the precise to file a overview petition, however that plea is set in chambers by the bench often with out listening to the contemnor.
The lawyer had been convicted in a prison contempt case involving two tweets – one among which mentioned 4 earlier Chief Justices had performed a task in destroying democracy in India over the previous six years.
The court docket sought an unconditional apology from him, sustaining that freedom of speech was not absolute. “You may do hundreds of good things, but that doesn’t give you a license to do ten crimes,” the court docket mentioned.
The court docket additionally cited Mr Bhushan’s excessive standing within the authorized group, and mentioned: “Had it been someone else, it was easier to ignore”.
Mr Bhushan refused to apologise for his feedback, arguing that he didn’t foresee any “substantial change” in his place and mentioned that his tweets had been “discharge of highest duty”.
Open criticism is important to “safeguard the democracy and its values,” he had mentioned, including that he would cheerfully settle for punishment.
At his listening to Mr Bhushan’s lawyer, Rajiv Dhavan, argued the Supreme Court should and will take excessive criticism as its “shoulders are broad enough”. Attorney General KK Venugopal additionally argued towards punishment.
“Bhushan’s tweets seek the improvement of the administration of justice… Let democracy follow in this case when he has exercised his free speech… It will be tremendously appreciated if the court leaves it at that,” he had mentioned.
Mr Bhushan had earlier expressed remorse in one other contempt case the place he mentioned half of the 16 Chief Justices of India had been corrupt. The remark was made throughout an interview to Tehelka journal in 2009.
With enter from PTI
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink