Dilemma Of Professional Ethics Or Personal Views: An Overview Of Prashant Bhushan Case
The Supreme Court of India took Suo moto action against a supreme court advocate, Prashant Bhushan for committing contempt of court by tweeting against the Hon’ble court and the learned Hon’ble judges of the same. The tweets raised the question on role of last four preceding CJIs before the current CJI Hon’ble Justice S.A.Bobde who as per him have harmed the democratic structure of the country and criticised shut down of the Supreme Court amid Covid-19 which according to him is denying access to justice for citizens.
In light of the tweets, the court In Re: Prashant Bhushan examined the expressions and held the accused liable for serious contempt of court. The court imposed a paltry sum fine on Prashant Bhushan of Rupee 1 which is required to be paid by September 15, 2020 failing which he would face three-months imprisonment and debarment from practice for three-year tenure. While, the court during the proceedings gave Prashant Bhushan an opportunity to apologise for his contempt as The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes procedure for contempt cases with an exception under section 12 as Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.[i] Hence, this exception would have let the court to pardon him from any punishment. On the contrary, Bhushan had refused for any apologies stating that he expressed his bonafide belief and apology would be against his own conscience.
Post the verdict on 31st August, 2020, the repercussions coming forth for him is that pursuant to conviction in a criminal case, the Bar Council of India can suspend any advocate from enrolment as per the Advocates Act, 1961. Currently, the BCI has directed the Bar Council of Delhi where Mr. Bhushan is enrolled as an advocate to examine the matter on the basis of laws laid down for conduct of advocates on the roll in consonance with the Supreme Court judgment.
Looking at the legal parlance, Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that an advocate shall not be admitted on roll of advocates of the state bar council if she/he has been convicted of an offence indulging moral turpitude. Also, section 35 of the act prescribes suspension of practice for a certain period or cancellation of license of an advocate found guilty of professional or other misconduct and the BCI too have Rules laid down for professional conduct and etiquette required from any advocate enrolled in any Indian state bar council.
The BCI in a press conference stated that the case will be currently dealt by Disciplinary committee of Delhi State Bar Council in the light of the above legal provisions.
On 14th September, 2020, Prashant Bhushan paid the fine imposed and also filed a review petition as he states that payment of fine is not acceptance of verdict. The petition claims that verdict made any criticism of the institutional role an offence of criminal contempt. The plea is also sought in an open-court hearing of the review and for the whole case be re-heard.
This is an unprecedented situation faced within the legal fraternity wherein the tussle lies within the legal system between the judiciary and the advocates, both the carriers and pillars of justice system of India. The decision of the bar council is awaited.
By-
Tanishka Grover
Convener, Reporters’ Committee
INBA
[i] Section 12, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971