Prashant Bhushan moves Supreme Court seeking review of judgment imposing 1 rupee fine on him for Contempt of Court

Advocate Prashant Bhushan has moved the Supreme Court seeking a review of its judgment of August 31 which imposed a token punishment of a Re 1 fine on him after finding him guilty of contempt of court..Bhushan has also prayed for an open court hearing of this review petition and for the larger questions of constitutional importance pertaining to contempt of court to be referred to a larger bench..Earlier, Bhushan had sought a review of the judgment of the Supreme Court that had found him guilty of contempt on account of two of his contentious tweets. Bhushan had also sought a right to appeal for himself as well as for others similarly placed like him who are held guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court in the first instance..Prashant Bhushan files review petition in SC against conviction for contempt; claims Justice Arun Mishra shouldn't have heard case.In the instant review petition filed through Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, Bhushan argues that in the sentencing, the Court has imposed a fine on him and in the event he defaults, he was liable to be barred form appearing before the Apex Court for a specified period of time. While the contingency of default does not arise in the light of fact that the fine stands paid, Bhushan avers that at no point during the hearing on sentencing was the possibility of being barred indicated by the Court. The petition says,."At no point was petitioner put to notice that the court was contemplating such a drastic action against him."Review petition filed by Prashant Bhushan.Moreover, Bhushan claims that the judgement is per incuriam as no semblance of procedure has been followed by the Court. He seeks to highlight that he was not furnished with a copy of the complaint filed against him in line with the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. He further argues that he was prevented from filing an additional reply before the Court when his preliminary reply was found unsatisfactory. He also adds,."The petitioner was further denied an opportunity to lead evidence under Section 17(5) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to substantiate averments in his preliminary reply."Review petition filed by Prashant Bhushan.The Court's sentencing was based solely on his preliminary reply, and the denial to allow him to lead evidence is also a violation of the established rules governing the contempt procedure, it is further said."The denial of opportunity to lead evidence is not only in explicit contravention of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but in the teeth of judgement of Co-ordinate bench in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009).".Another ground raised is that imposing any punishment on a person who has been convicted for contempt of court which is not strictly in accordance with the types and quantum of punishments prescribed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.Further, the Court's ruling that a sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on him if he defaulted in payment of the fine is disproportionate and contrary to provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Bhushan adds..While he sought to put up a defence against the charges of contempt, the same was viewed as an "aggravation" by the Court. This, Bhushan says, is an error apparent in the judgment. This also goes to violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the plea states.."The finding of an “aggravation” of contempt amounts to a fresh conviction and violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution. Further, this additional conviction is arrived at on facts not specifically put to the accused and not tried and deserves to be treated as a violation of the right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21.".Another "error apparent on the face of the record" is that the Court failed to consider truth as a defence to the contempt charges against Bhushan, the plea states."This Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent in recording that a finding of truth or falsity of the statements was unnecessary, and then proceeding to negative the defence of truth for a supposed and untested lack of bona fides and public interest. Such an approach would also be inconsistent with Section 13(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 under which truth alone would be an incomplete defence, unless it is accompanied by bona fides and regard for public interest.".As regards the Court's ruling on Bhushan's statements against the judges, the review petition states,"By treating instances of strident criticism of individual judges and of the institutional functioning and features of the Supreme Court at large as being ipso facto capable of affecting the administration of justice, this Hon’ble commits an manifest error. Such an approach to Section 13(a) reduces it contents – which operate as a safeguard to the benefit of accused persons – to a dead letter.".Furthermore, the review petition says that a decisive ruling by a Bench of appropriate strength is needed on the questions that arise from the case. These questions are:a. Whether the power under Article 129 is subject to the rigours of Part III of the Constitution, and the rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 20, 21, 22 and 32?b. Whether a summary procedure in cases of criminal contempt which is not ex facie curiae is compatible with Part III of the Constitution of India?c. Whether, in view of the fact that the suo motu proceedings for contempt of a constitutional court call for the court to act both as aggrevied and as adjudicator, the provision of a right to an intra-court appeal is necessary in interest of public confidence and the fundamental rights of accused persons under Articles 20, 21, 22 and 32 of the Constitution of India?.Bhushan was convicted and sentenced by a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra who demitted office shortly thereafter..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.