Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul><li>Lawyer and activist <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> has been fined ₹1 by the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> for contempt of court. </li><li>He has till September 15 to make the deposit else he will go to jail and be debarred from practicing law for three months. </li><li>India’s top court seems to be testing Bhushan’s resolve after he refused to apologise to the court despite being given extra time and being told to reconsider.</li></ul>In the case of Prashant Bhushan versus India’s judiciary, the Supreme Court has levied a fine of ₹1 against the activist and lawyer. The case drew heavy criticism from the masses for creating a fuss over two tweets by Bhushan which were critical of the Indian justice system and the Chief Justice of India. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77107560" title="Tweets criticising India's Supreme Court get tagged as 'hate speech' and incur the judge's wrath ⁠— Twitter caught in the crossfire" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The fine may be symbolic, but Bhushan has till September 15 to make the deposit otherwise he will be debarred from practising law and will go to jail for three months. Testing Bhushan’s resolve On August 25, the bench headed by Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari reserved orders on Bhushan’s sentencing after finding him guilty of contempt of court. During the hearing, Bhushan was given time by the court to apologise for his tweets, which he refused to do. He even filed a supplementary statement reiterating why he is choosing to stand by his tweets rather than apologise. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77718651" title="Prashant Bhushan refuses to apologise to India's top court — 'An insincere apology would amount to the contempt of my conscience'" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> “We not only gave him an opportunity to apologise but also, directly and indirectly, persuaded the contemnor to express regret,” the bench <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-sc-sentences-prashant-bhushan-to-a-fine-of-rupees-one-in-the-contempt-case-over-his-two-tweets-162190">stated</a> today. Bhushan’s counsel, senior advocate Rajeev Dhave, argued that Bhushan wasn’t seeking mercy from the court but ‘judicial statesmanship’. The tweets that started it all A petition was filed by Advocate <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/tweets-criticising-indias-supreme-court-get-tagged-as-hate-speech-and-incurs-the-judges-wrath-twitter-caught-in-the-crossfire/articleshow/77107560.cms">Mahek Maheshwari</a> alleging that Bhushan’s tweets were nothing more than a ‘cheap publicity student’ to ‘spread hatred in the form of anti-India campaign.’ <div type="image" title="pjote grid (1)" msid="77848067" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Prashant Bhushan&amp;#39;s tweets that make under the Supreme Court&amp;#39;s scanner&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> According to the filing, Bhushan’s remarks — due to his standing and reputation as a lawyer — could severely affect the perception of the CJI and undermine the people’s trust in the justice system. Dave, on the other hand, argued that Bhushan’s statements on Twitter were only him exercising his right to freedom of speech. He told the court that his client’s tweets were not out of malice, but out of love. Yet, Bhushan was ruled to be in contempt of court. “An attempt to shake the very foundation of the constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand,” the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-holds-prashant-bhushan-guilty-of-contempt-of-court-punishment-to-be-announced-on-august-20/articleshow/77539437.cms">Supreme Court said in its judgement</a>. “The tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy.” Bhushan’s third chance to appease the Indian judiciary During the sentence hearing, Bhushan was given an extra 30 minutes to think his situation over and consider apologising to the court. However, Bhushan held to his resolve. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77739151" title="Supreme Court gives Prashant Bhushan final 30 minutes to reconsider giving apology" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The option to pay a ₹1 fine is Bhushan’s third chance to make it up to courts. He is scheduled to host a press conference at 4:00 pm later today to address the issue and hopefully let the world know whether or not he’s going to give in to the Supreme Court. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/twitter-removal-of-prashant-bhushan-tweets-opposed-by-internet-rights-body/articleshow/77667757.cms">Twitter's decision to 'proactively' remove Prashant Bhushan's tweets opposed by internet rights body</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-holds-prashant-bhushan-guilty-of-contempt-of-court-punishment-to-be-announced-on-august-20/articleshow/77539437.cms">Supreme Court wields the ‘iron hand’ in holding Prashant Bhushan guilty for tweets critical of judiciary and chief justice</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-rejects-prashant-bhushans-plea-to-delay-sentence-hearing-on-twitter-case/articleshow/77649463.cms">Prashant Bhushan rejects Supreme Court's offer to delay sentence but is given two to three days to reconsider statement</a>

Supreme Court tests Prashant Bhushan's resolve with a ₹1 fine for 'critical' tweets

<ul><li>Activist and lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> said that he will file a review petition against the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s verdict on the suo motu contempt cases over his tweets. </li><li>Bhushan paid the ₹1 fine charged to him for criminal contempt of court but told the press that making the deposit does not mean that he accepts the verdict. </li><li>He said that he will use the 'truth fund' — contributions to help him pay the ₹1 fine — to provide legal to aid to others whose freedom of speech was being compromised. </li></ul>Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan said on Monday that paying of the token fine of Re 1 imposed on him by the Supreme Court in a contempt case does not mean that he has accepted the verdict and has filed a review petition against the judgement. Bhushan, who deposited the fine with the apex court Registry over his two tweets seen as contempt of court, said that he has received contributions from several corners of the country for paying the fine, and a "truth fund" will be created out of such contributions to provide legal aid to those who are prosecuted for dissenting opinions. "Just because I'm paying the fine does not mean I have accepted the verdict. We are filing a review plea today. We have filed a writ petition that there must be an appeal procedure created for conviction under contempt," Bhushan told the media before submitting the fine. "The State is using all means to silence voices of dissent. The 'truth fund' will be used to protect the personal liberty to those persons who face the State's persecution", said Bhushan who was accompanied by a group of people from Rajasthan. The lawyer also spoke on the arrest of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid for his alleged role in the Delhi riots and said the government is using all sorts of tactics to shut down criticism. The activist-lawyer had earlier said his tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary, but they were an expression of his anguish at what he felt was the court's deviation from its sterling record. A bench headed by Justice (retired) Arun Mishra asked Bhushan to deposit the fine by September 15, failing which he would have attracted a jail term of three months and debarment from law practice for three years. Bhushan in his statement had refused to offer an apology to the Supreme Court for the tweets, saying what he had expressed represented his bona fide belief which he continued to hold. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/its-not-just-india-chinese-intelligence-has-its-eye-on-more-than-2-4-million-individuals-across-the-us-japan-canada-australia-and-the-uk/articleshow/78101034.cms">It's not just India — Chinese intelligence has its eye on more than 2.4 million individuals across the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the UK</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/news/india-china-border-tension-will-be-in-focus-as-the-parliaments-monsoon-session-begins-today/articleshow/78098575.cms">India-China border tension will be in focus as the Parliament's Monsoon session begins today</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/all-eyes-on-parliaments-monsoon-session-the-banking-regulation-amendment-bill-2020-may-not-be-on-the-docket-for-long/articleshow/78101791.cms">All eyes on Parliament's Monsoon session — the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2020 may not be on the docket for long</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/hcl-tech-share-price-jumps-after-mid-quarter-guidance-pulling-tcs-infosys-wipro-and-tech-mahindra-in-the-green-along-with-it/articleshow/78103743.cms">HCL Tech's mid-quarter guidance optimism sparks rally in TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra too</a>

Prashant Bhushan will file review petition against Supreme Court verdict after paying ₹1 fine

Activist-lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> moved the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday seeking review of the August 31 sentencing order to either pay nominal fine of Re 1 or face a three-month jail term and debarment from law practice for three years in the contempt case for his two tweets against the judiciary. Bhushan, who has already deposited Re 1 as fine with the apex court's registry on September 14, has filed two separate review petitions in the contempt case. The <keyword id="10033391" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="first-review-plea">first review plea</keyword> on September 14 had challenged the August 14 verdict convicting him for the contempt of court, while the second plea has been filed against the August 31 sentencing order which imposed the fine. In the second review plea, filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, Bhushan has sought "an oral hearing in an open court" on the matter. He has also sought recall of the impugned judgment and a fresh hearing, and said that the questions of law raised by him should be referred to a larger bench of appropriate strength. The plea said Bhushan was not supplied with the copy of the contempt petition filed by a lawyer on which the apex court had taken cognisance. Referring to an apex court judgement, the review plea said the court never indicated to Bhushan that it was contemplating barring from practicing as a lawyer. "At no point during the judicial proceedings in this matter did this court even slightly indicate that it was contemplating disbarring the Petitioner-Advocate herein from appearing before this court. "However, without any prior notice, the impugned order imposed on the petitioner a sentence in the alternative disbarring him from appearing before this court for a period of three years which is per incuriam as per the law laid down by a coordinate three judge bench in R K Anand vs Delhi High Court case..," the plea said. The rules of natural justice, therefore, demand that before passing an order debarring an advocate from appearing in courts he must be clearly told that his alleged conduct or actions are such that if found guilty he might be debarred from appearing in courts for a specific period, it said. Besides, Bhushan was denied an opportunity to file a fresh affidavit in case the court was not satisfied by his preliminary reply. He said that his second tweet regarding the judiciary in the last six years was not part of the contempt petition and was a separate issue altogether and should have been placed before the <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice Of India</keyword> "for appropriate directions in the face of settled law". "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," the plea said. On August 14, the top court had held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest. Holding that Bhushan attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court, the top court had said, "If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations". The top court had analysed the two tweets of Bhushan posted on the micro-blogging site Twitter on June 27 on the functioning of judiciary in past six years, and on July 22 with regard to Chief Justice of India S A Bobde. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/news/latest-updates-on-india-china-border-issue/articleshow/78162853.cms">India-China decide ‘early date’ needed for military talks on border issue — but stalemate continues</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/babri-masjid-demolition-case-cbi-special-court-acquits-all-accused-judge-says-demolition-was-not-pre-planned/articleshow/78401534.cms">Babri Masjid demolition case: CBI Special Court acquits all accused, judge says ‘demolition was not pre-planned’</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/rbi-records-its-largest-ever-current-account-surplus-but-thats-not-necessarily-a-good-thing/articleshow/78403696.cms">RBI records its largest-ever current account surplus — but that’s not necessarily a good thing</a>

Prashant Bhushan files fresh plea in Supreme Court seeking review contempt case punishment

Activist-lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> Tuesday urged the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> to give a "statesman like message" by recalling the verdict convicting him for the contempt of the court for his two tweets against the judiciary. Attorney General K K Venugopal also asked the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra to forgive Bhushan, who has been refusing to tender unconditional apology for the tweets. He said Bhushan should "withdraw all statements and express regret". The bench, which on August 20 had granted time till Monday to Bhushan to reconsider his "defiant statement" and tender "unconditional apology" for the contemptuous tweets, concluded hearing on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the activist lawyer. "Though Attorney General suggested reprimand but that will be extreme. Don't make Prashant Bhushan a martyr. Don't do it. He has not committed murder or theft," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, submitted before the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari. Referring to the supplementary statement tendered by Bhushan, his lawyer said that not only this case be closed but even the controversy has come to an end and "there should be a statesman like message" from the top court. "I make two suggestions. The convicting judgement should be recalled and no sentence should be imposed. I am making a statement on my client's behalf," Dhavan said. Referring to Bhushan's statements and his refusal to apologise, the bench asked Venugopal that mistakes were committed by all but they needed to be accepted and said that here Bhushan was not willing to accept that. "We have to be respectful to each other and tolerant. We are not separate from you (lawyers). We have also come from the bar. We are open to criticism but we cannot go in public," the bench said during the hearing. Justice Mishra, who is demitting office on September 2, said that judges cannot go to the press to speak their mind. "We are not carrying prejudice against anyone. Don't think we are not tolerating criticism. There are several contempt petitions pending but tell us has he been punished ever. It is painful to see such things happening at the time when I am demitting office," Justice Mishra said. The court, which granted 30 minutes to Bhushan to 'think over' his stand of not expressing regret over his tweets, later sought views of Dhavan on the punishment to be awarded to Bhushan in the contempt case. Dhavan said he did not support Venugopal's view that Bhushan be reprimanded as it will be an extreme punishment and moreover, he has not committed any murder or theft and any such punishment will make him "a martyr". Taking note of Bhushan's refusal to apologise, the bench commented as to what is wrong in apologising, is this word so bad. Venugopal said that judges were the third party in this case against whom the alleged statements have been made and the court has not heard them. "Why are such allegations being made in the first place," the bench asked. Judges cannot defend themselves, the bench observed and said that it is the Attorney General who will have to protect the system. "Reprimanding like 'don't do it again will not be correct," Venugopal said. Earlier in the day, the court granted 30 minutes to Bhushan to reconsider his stand after the Attorney General sought forgiveness for the activist-lawyer. He had refused to offer an apology to the Supreme Court for his two tweets against the judiciary, saying what he expressed represented his bona fide belief which he continued to hold. "Bhushan says the Supreme Court has collapsed, is it not objectionable," asked the bench. The court can speak through orders only and even in his affidavit, Bhushan has made disparaging remarks against the judiciary, the bench said. The court should warn him and take a compassionate view, Venugopal told the bench. When Bhushan does not think he did anything wrong then what is the point of giving him advice to not repeating it, the bench said. "A person should realize his mistake, we gave Bhushan time but he says he will not apologize," it said. The apex court on August 14 had held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest. He faces simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or with both as punishment. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-gives-prashant-bhushan-final-30-minutes-to-reconsider-giving-apology/articleshow/77739151.cms">Supreme Court gives Prashant Bhushan final 30 minutes to reconsider giving apology</a> <a href="http://businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-refers-prashant-bhushans-2009-contempt-to-another-bench/articleshow/77736957.cms">Supreme Court refers Prashant Bhushan's 2009 contempt case to another bench</a>

Prashant Bhushan asks Supreme Court to recall verdict as he faces imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to ₹ 2,000

Activist-lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> refused to offer an apology to the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday for his two tweets against the judiciary saying what he expressed represented his bona fide belief which he continued to hold. An insincere apology would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution, Bhushan said in his supplementary statement filed in the suo motu contempt case against him by the top court. An apology for expression of his beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere, he said. Bhushan said as an officer of court he believes as a duty to speak up when he believe there is a deviation from its sterling record. "Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples' rights," he said. He said, "My tweets represented this bona fide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court. Therefore, an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere." Bhushan further said that an apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made. "This is especially so when I have made the statements bona fide and pleaded truths with full details, which have not been dealt with by the Court. If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem," he said. On August 20, the top court had granted time till August 24 to Bhushan to reconsider his "defiant statement" refusing to apologise and tender "unconditional apology" for contemptuous tweets against the judiciary and rejected his submission that quantum of punishment be decided by another bench. The apex court, on August 14, had held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest. He faces simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or with both as punishment. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/india/news/from-priyanka-gandhi-vadra-to-manmohan-singh-these-are-the-stated-views-of-congress-working-committee-members-on-sonia-gandhis-resignation/slidelist/77713740.cms">From Priyanka Gandhi Vadra to Manmohan Singh, these are the stated views of Congress Working Committee members on Sonia Gandhi's resignation</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/india/news/congress-working-committee-cwc-meeting-updates-decision-on-congress-new-president-sonia-gandhi-or-rahul-gandhi/articleshow/77717675.cms">Sonia Gandhi offers to quit, Manmohan Singh holds her back and Rahul Gandhi questions party leaders — the CWC meeting reveals the cracks in Congress</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/cognizant-says-it-will-spend-2-7-crore-to-restore-sebakkam-lake-and-help-natural-marshland-pallikaranai-wetland/articleshow/77716094.cms">Cognizant says it will spend ₹2.7 crore to restore one of India's last natural marshlands in Chennai</a>

Prashant Bhushan refuses to apologise to India's top court — 'An insincere apology would amount to the contempt of my conscience'

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Thursday asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to assist the court in the <keyword id="9820120" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="2009-contempt-case">2009 contempt case</keyword> against Advocate <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> for his remarks in the Tehelka magazine. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna directed that the case record of the 2009 contempt case should be sent to AG. Senior advocate <keyword id="377410" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajeev-Dhavan">Rajeev Dhavan</keyword>, representing Bhushan, submitted before the bench that in the previous hearing the AG had shown inclination to assist the court in the matter, and thus he should be impleaded as an amicus curiae. The bench replied that the AG would be impleaded in the case in accordance with the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, and the decision to appoint him as an amicus-curiae in the matter will be taken later. Dhavan contended before the bench there are more questions of law, which should be framed in the case, as 10 questions have already been framed. He added that the court wanted to add three more. After a brief hearing on the matter, the bench said it will take up the case in the week commencing from October 12. On August 25, <keyword id="1014396" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Arun-Mishra">Justice Arun Mishra</keyword> had directed that the case be placed before another bench, as he was days away from demitting office. The Supreme Court had observed that it is not a question of punishment only, it is a question of faith in the institution. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had told Dhavan that he must ponder that people come to court for relief, and when that faith is shaken then there is a problem. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for journalist Tarun Tejpal, contended before the bench that people come to court for justice and relief. "We will come and go but the institution exists forever. We must protect the integrity of the institution," Sibal had submitted. The bench had then said the matter to be listed on September 10 before an appropriate bench by the Chief Justice. "I am short of time. I am demitting office," Justice Mishra had observed, who retired on September 2. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/supreme-court-inclined-to-excuse-moratorium-interest-on-interest-as-it-gives-the-government-another-two-weeks-to-file-detailed-affidavit/articleshow/78033878.cms">Supreme Court ‘inclined’ to excuse moratorium interest on interest as it gives the government another two weeks to file detailed affidavit</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-tests-prashant-bhushans-resolve-with-a-1-fine-for-critical-tweets/articleshow/77846880.cms">Supreme Court tests Prashant Bhushan's resolve with a ₹1 fine for 'critical' tweets</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-refers-prashant-bhushans-2009-contempt-to-another-bench/articleshow/77736957.cms">Supreme Court refers Prashant Bhushan's 2009 contempt case to another bench</a>

Supreme Court ropes in Attorney General to help in 2009 contempt case against Bhushan

<ul><li>The <keyword id="3019696" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="International-Commission-of-Jurists">International Commission of Jurists</keyword> (ICJ) has joined 1,800 other lawyers calling for the Indian Supreme Court to reassess its standards of criminal contempt after the <keyword id="6368850" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> case verdict. </li><li>The international human rights organisation made up mostly of lawyers and judges claims that the verdict is inconsistent with <keyword id="473565" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="international-standards">international standards</keyword>. </li><li>It argues that, if left unchecked, such convictions could have a “chilling effect” on the freedom of expression in India. </li></ul>The case of two tweets by the lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan that were critical of the Indian judiciary and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is now in the global spotlight. The International Commission of Jurists (<a href="https://www.icj.org/india-icj-urges-review-of-criminal-contempt-laws-after-supreme-court-convicts-human-rights-lawyer-for-social-media-posts-critical-of-judiciary/">ICJ</a>) — an international human rights organisation made up of lawyers and judges — has joined 1,800 Indian lawyers asking India’s Supreme Court to review the standards of criminal contempt as a reaction to Bhushan’s verdict. Left unchecked, the institution argues that there could be a “chilling effect” on the freedom of expression in India. “There is a general concern that the protection of freedom of expression is rapidly eroding in India,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director. Bhushan’s ruling inconsistent with international standards Bhushan was held in criminal contempt of court for going on a public platform, Twitter, to call out the Supreme Court for not doing enough for citizens of the country during the lockdown. <div type="image" title="pjote grid (1)" msid="77885935" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Prashant Bhushan&amp;#39;s tweets &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> “While the Court only imposed a symbolic fine of one rupee, rather than imprisonment, the ICJ considers that the conviction appears to be inconsistent with international standards on freedom of expression and the role of lawyers”, ICJ said in a statement. International standards refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 that India was a party to — which guarantees the freedom of expression. “While some restrictions of freedom of expression are permitted by international standards, a particularly wide scope must be preserved for debate and discussion about such matters as the role of the judiciary, access to justice, and democracy, by members of the public, including through public commentary on the courts,” it added. ICJ joins 1,800 Indian lawyers Last month, more than <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B_MDUNwikNs2momE2EV5hh4AoMWeVx31FOMaIpSWcdA/edit#gid=700758088">1,800 members of the Indian Bar</a> — including senior advocates like Sriram Panchu, Raju Ramachandram, Mihir Desai and others— issued a statement criticising the Supreme Court for its verdict. The signatories said, “a silenced bar cannot lead to a strong court.” According to them, just because the judiciary is independent of other functions of the state does not imply that it is exempt from scrutiny. “This judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken,” the consortium of lawyers said in their joint statement.

ICJ raises concern on SC decision in Bhushan case — says it’s inconsistent with international standards

New Delhi, The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a re-imagining of how access to justice, a key pillar in all democracies, can be ensured in the backdrop of an <keyword id="10498702" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="unprecedented-health-crisis">unprecedented health crisis</keyword>. The virus pushed a <keyword id="10498701" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="serious-supreme-court">serious Supreme Court</keyword> into revolutionary changes to meet the persistent demands of justice. The Supreme Court departed from its history and attempted to <keyword id="5368288" type="TECHNOLOGY" weightage="20" keywordseo="mainstream-technology">mainstream technology</keyword>, since March 23 the court hearings moved online. Justices began hearing arguments by video conferencing, a momentous step for an institution, which has always been cautious and guarded its secrets. Technology began to serve as a platform for fiery arguments and courtroom's give-and-take by lawyers, and paved the way for a renewed justice delivery system. In this year, largely impacted by the pandemic, the Supreme Court delivered some crucial judgments, which may play a significant role in the judicial history. 1. Permanent Commission for women in armed forces In the beginning of the year, the Supreme Court delivered a strong blow at gender stereotype, as it granted permanent commission (PC) to women officers in army, navy and air force. The top court junked the <keyword id="6356303" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Centre">Centre</keyword>'s argument that women were "physiologically weak" to be given PC and command appointments, and asked the government to look beyond the deeply entrenched gender stereotype, which positions man as a dominant being and casts a notion for women as caretakers. The series of rulings, beginning in February, quashed the 2019 circular, which foreclosed women officers' chances to apply for PCs. The top court said to cast aspersions on women's abilities on the ground of gender is an affront not only to their dignity as women but to the dignity of the members of the Indian Army - men and women - who serve as equal citizens in a common mission. The top court directed the Centre to give PC to serving women officers, who completed 14 years in service along with pensionary benefits to those who retired on account of not being granted the commission. The top court said for command assignments women cannot be excluded completely and there should be case-by-case basis consideration. The top court said the delay in granting PC has caused "irreparable prejudice to the women officers", and directed the Centre to grant permanent commission to women officers in the Army within three months. 2. Right to access to the <keyword id="10498700" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="internet-equivalent">internet equivalent</keyword> to a fundamental right In January, the Supreme Court said the right to access the Internet is a fundamental right, under Article 19 of the Constitution, by extension. The apex court observed that it is essential to distinguish between the internet as a tool and the freedom of expression through the internet. The court directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to immediately restore internet services connected with access to government websites, localised/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services. The ruling came on the petitions challenging the telecommunication blackout in the region, which followed the revocation of the Article 370. The top court said non-recognition of technology within the sphere of law is only a disservice to the inevitable. In this light, the importance of the internet cannot be underestimated, as from morning to night we are encapsulated within the cyberspace and our most basic activities are enabled by the use of internet, observed the court. However, the judgement did not mention any time-frame to restore internet services to other sectors and for the people in the region. The apex court observed that none of the counsels, involved in the matter, have argued for declaring the right to access the internet as a fundamental right and therefore we are not expressing any view on the same. "We are confining ourselves to declaring that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to carry on any trade or business under 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is constitutionally protected", said the court. 3. SC asks Parliament to ponder over powers of the Speaker In January, the Supreme Court asked the Parliament to ponder over the powers granted to the Legislative Assembly Speaker, regarding the disqualification of MLAs, under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court asked the Parliament to "seriously consider" establishing a permanent tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism, to examine disputes concerning disqualification of MPs and MLAs. The top court ruling came on an appeal by a Congress MLA from Manipur, who challenged the delay by the Speaker in deciding a disqualification petition against another MLA who won on a Congress ticket but later switched to the BJP. The court emphasised that it is essential for the Speaker to decide on the matter within a reasonable time period, and recommended the disqualification petitions should be decided within three months. 4. SC takes suo moto cognizance of the migrant crisis during the Covid-19 lockdown The Supreme Court initially exercised restraint in passing a strong order and expressed satisfaction at the steps taken by the government in the migrant workers' matter. However, it shook off the hesitation and in May began hearing on its own on various issues connected with the problems faced by migrant workers, who began walking back on foot to their native places or were left stranded in different parts of country due the lockdown to contain the pandemic. The top court conducted a series of hearings in the matter, where it heard detailed submissions by the Centre and state governments, and directed all migrant workers willing to return to their native places must be transported within a fortnight. The court ordered the state governments and Union Territories to register the migrant workers who have returned home - at the district and block levels - and provide employment opportunities to them. Since then, the top court has taken suo moto cognisance in important matters: proper treatment of Covid-19 patients and dignified handling of dead bodies in the hospitals; and spread of the infection in the child protection homes. 5. Amid Covid, fundamental right to health includes affordable treatment In December, the Supreme Court said it is a war against Covid-19, which needs government-public partnership to make Covid treatment affordable for the common people. The top court emphasised that fundamental right to health includes affordable treatment. "Right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. Therefore, it is the duty upon the State to make provisions for affordable treatment and more and more provisions in the hospitals to be run by the State and/or local administration are made", said a three-judge bench. The top court noted that it cannot be disputed that for whatever reasons, treatment has become costlier and it is not affordable to the common man at all. Even if one survives from Covid-19, many times he is finished financially and economically. The bench insisted that the state government and the local administration should ensure that a cap is fixed on the fees charged by the private hospitals, which can be in exercise of the powers under the Disaster Management Act. 6. Public spaces can't be occupied by indeterminable number of people indefinitely In a major verdict on petitions seeking removal anti-CAA protesters at Shaheen Bagh, the Supreme Court said it cannot accept that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest, and cited the distinction between the manner of dissent against the colonisers and the expression of dissent in a democratic system. A three-judge bench said traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. "What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy," said the top court. Emphasising that protesters cannot block public roads and cause grave inconvenience to commuters, the top court said: "We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone." The court said it is the responsibility of the administration to keep public spaces free from obstruction, and the law enforcement agencies should wait for the court's intervention. 7. Transfer of probe, into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput from Maharashtra government to CBI The death of Sushant Singh Rajput was shrouded with mystery and it continues to remain so. In August, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI probe into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput and asked Mumbai Police to hand over all evidence collected so far in the case to CBI. The top court noted that Mumbai police had registered only an accidental death report in connection with Rajput's death, therefore it had limited investigation powers, whereas the case registered by Bihar police was a full-fledged FIR which has been already referred to CBI. The apex court ensured that there was no confusion about CBI being the sole authority to investigate the mystery behind Rajput's death and no other state police could interfere with it. The apex court order came on a plea by Rhea Chakraborty seeking transfer of FIR registered in Patna to Mumbai. 8. SC extends Arnab Goswami's interim bail, saying deprivation of liberty even for a day is one day too many In November, in a major relief for Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in a 2018 abetment to suicide case. The top court noted that it is deeply concerned if courts do not preserve human liberty and if constitutional courts do not protect liberty then who will, and "deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic implications of our decisions." Arnab and two others were arrested in connection with the suicide of architect Anvay Naik and his mother. "Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting", said the top court. The bench, pulling up the Maharashtra government over Arnab's arrest, said the victim is entitled to a fair investigation and the investigation should go on, but if state targets individuals on this basis then let a strong message go out. The top court said if constitutional courts did not interfere, "we are traveling the path of destruction undeniably". 9. Under Domestic Violence Act, SC says woman can seek residence in shared households of husband's relatives In October, the Supreme Court held that a woman can seek right to stay in in-laws house under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, where she lived for some time due to her relationship. The ruling has given a wider meaning to shared household in DV Act, as the woman facing domestic violence has a right to reside in a shared household, rented or owned by her in-laws, and cannot be compelled to move out, after she filed a complaint under DV Act. The three-judge bench said domestic violence in this country is rampant and several women encounter violence in some form or the other or almost every day. However, it is the least reported form of cruel behaviour. The bench said in event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the said house will become a shared household. In December, the Supreme Court said the Senior Citizen Act 2007, cannot be interpreted or deployed to evict a woman from her shared household, which she is otherwise entitled under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. "Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman's right to a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV (protection of women from domestic violence) Act 2005", said the top court. 10. SC fines lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> by Rupee 1 in contempt case for tweets against the judiciary On 31 August, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 1 on advocate Prashant Bhushan, convicted in a contempt case for tweets against the judiciary. The court said in case if he fails to deposit the penalty by September 15, then he would have to undergo 3-month imprisonment. On August 25, a three-judge bench had reserved the order on the sentence, after Bhushan declined to apologise for the tweets. Pronouncing the judgement, the bench said freedom of expression is there, but rights of others should also be respected, and the conduct of the contemnor also needs to be taken into consideration. The bench observed that Bhushan also gave wide publicity to the supplementary statement submitted in the court, where he refused to express regret for the tweets against the judiciary. Bhushan deposited the fine but also sought intra-court appeal to challenge his conviction, and this plea is pending in the top court. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/top-stocks-to-watch-mrs-bectors-ril-bharti-airtel-vodafone-idea-ilfs-interglobe-aviation-future-group-deepak-nitrite-jubilant-foodworks-and-others/articleshow/79933826.cms">Top stocks to watch – Mrs Bectors, RIL, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea, IL&amp;FS, InterGlobe Aviation, Future Group, Deepak Nitrite, Jubilant FoodWorks, and others</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/there-are-one-of-only-17-indian-companies-out-of-500-that-aced-the-du-pont-test/articleshow/79911627.cms">There are one of only 17 Indian companies out of 500 that aced the Du Pont test</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/wipro-buyback-offer-details-and-700-million-metro-ag-deal-drives-share-price/articleshow/79911875.cms">Wipro offers 10% more to buy back shares and signs a $700 million deal with Metro AG – everything that’s driving the IT services stock higher today</a>

Top 10 crucial judgments by Supreme Court in the year of the pandemic

A day before the scheduled hearing on quantum of sentence, activist-lawyer <keyword id="6368850" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="prashant-bhushan">Prashant Bhushan</keyword> who has been held guilty of criminal contempt for his two <keyword id="6551736" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="derogatory-tweets">derogatory tweets</keyword>, moved the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> seeking deferment of the proceedings till a <keyword id="159370" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Review-petition">review petition</keyword> is filed and considered. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77539437" title="Supreme Court wields the ‘iron hand’ in holding Prashant Bhushan guilty for tweets critical of judiciary and chief justice" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> The top court on August 14 held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his derogatory tweets against the judiciary saying they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the <keyword id="222899" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Public-Interest">public interest</keyword>. The apex court had said it would hear on August 20, the arguments on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to Bhushan in the matter. A contemnor can be punished with simple imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or with both. Bhushan in his application stated that he intends to file a review petition against the order of August 14 after studying it in detail and seeking appropriate legal counsel as the ramification of the said order is of grave constitutional significance, in particular on the right to free speech. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77107560" title="Tweets criticising India's Supreme Court get tagged as 'hate speech' and incur the judge's wrath ⁠— Twitter caught in the crossfire" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> "The Applicant would file the same within the limitation period of 30 days from date of the judgment, as he is entitled to under Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Hence, it is prayed that, in view of the same, the hearing on the sentence as fixed on August 20, 2020, vide the order of August 14, 2020, be deferred till the consideration of the review by this Court," he said in the application filed in the contempt case which was taken <keyword id="6579425" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="suo-motu-cognizance">suo motu cognizance</keyword> by the top court. Bhushan submitted the deferment of the said hearing would be in the interests of justice in view of the underlying public policy with respect to safeguarding liberty of a citizen under Article 21 till such time as his first appeal (in this case the review petition) is considered. The application said if this court proceeds with the hearing on the sentence and imposes any sentence, the same may be directed to be stayed till the remedy of review is exhausted by the applicant. Bhushan, in his application filed through advocate Kamini Jaiswal, said in criminal contempt proceedings, the top court functions like a trial court and is also the last court. "Section 19(1) of <keyword id="9786151" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-contempt-of-court-act">the Contempt of Court Act</keyword> gives a statutory right of appeal to a person found guilty of contempt by the High Court. The fact that there is no appeal against an order of this Court makes it doubly necessary that it takes the utmost precaution to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done, " he said. Bhushan said it would be in consonance with the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise there would be gross injustice since there would be no occasion to examine the correctness of the findings arrived at in a suo motu criminal contempt proceeding before putting the convicted contemnor's liberty at stake, he said. The top court on August 14 held that Bhushan attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court and said, "If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations." In its 108-page verdict, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, had said: The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, in our considered view, amount to committing criminal contempt. In the result, we hold alleged contemnor No1 - Mr Prashant Bhushan guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court. The top court had, however, discharged the notice issued to Twitter Inc, California, USA in the contempt case after accepting its explanation that it is only an intermediary and does not have any control on what the users post on the platform. It had said the company has also shown its bona fides immediately after the cognizance was taken by this Court as it has suspended both the tweets. The top court had analysed the two tweets of Bhushan posted on the micro-blogging site on June 27 on the functioning of judiciary in past six years, and on July 22 with regard to Chief Justice of India S A Bobde. "In our considered view, it cannot be said that the tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest," it had said. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/space/news/nasa-confirms-that-the-dent-in-earths-protective-shield-is-splitting-into-two-and-it-is-getting-bigger/articleshow/77611768.cms">NASA confirms that the dent in Earth’s protective shield is splitting into two as it gets bigger</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/careers/news/facebook-is-hiring-senior-execs-for-its-digital-wallet-novi-and-its-partnership-with-jio/articleshow/77606649.cms">Facebook is hiring senior execs for its digital wallet Novi and its partnership with Jio</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/microsoft-is-ending-support-for-the-legacy-internet-explorer-but-its-only-going-to-affect-less-than-5-of-online-users/articleshow/77607727.cms">Microsoft is ending support for the legacy Internet Explorer — but it's only going to affect less than 5% of online users</a>

Prashant Bhushan is seeking deferment of hearing on sentence until the Supreme Court considers the review plea

<ul><li>Born in Myanmar on June 20, 1917, Padmavati earned an M.B.B.S degree from the medical College Rangoon. She had to leave the country due to the Second World War and settle in India.</li><li>She pursued her post-graduate in the UK and specialised in <keyword id="27520" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="cardiology">cardiology</keyword> in Sweden and the US at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and <keyword id="97117" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Harvard-University">Harvard University</keyword> after the war ended in 1945</li></ul> S. Padmavati, India's first female cardiologist, has passed away due to Covid-19 at the age of 103 after battling the disease for 11 days. In a statement on Sunday, O.P. Yadava, Chief Executive Officer of Delhi's National Heart Institute said: "Our very own Madam Padmavati has left us all, after her centurial terrestrial journey. She fought corona bravely but chose to move on at 11.09 p.m. on August 29. Let us keep her in our prayers forever and long." According to another statement by the National Heart Institute, also issued on Sunday, she was admitted with Covid-19 and had breathing difficulty and fever. "She developed pneumonia in both lungs and needed ventilator support. However, she sustained a cardiac arrest and passed away," it said. The noted cardiologist, also a recipient of <keyword id="9774748" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-padma-vibhushan">the Padma Vibhushan</keyword>, had set up the National Heart Institute of the All India Heart Foundation and had served as its Director and President. Born in Myanmar on June 20, 1917, Padmavati earned an M.B.B.S degree from the medical College Rangoon. She had to leave the country due to the Second World War and settle in India. She pursued her post-graduate in the UK and specialised in cardiology in Sweden and the US at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Harvard University after the war ended in 1945. On her return to India, she joined the Lady Hardinge Medical College in New Delhi as a lecturer in Medicine, subsequently becoming Professor and Head of the Department. Later, she moved to the Maulana Azad Medical College as Director Principal and later as Consultant in Cardiology and Director at <keyword id="9855431" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-govind-ballabh-pant-hospital">the Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital</keyword>. Her research work has been on rheumatic heart disease, cor pulmonale, hypertension and coronary artery disease with special reference to epidemiology and prevention. The acclaimed doctor has published extensively in prestigious journals in India and abroad. She has taught undergraduates, post-graduates and post-doctoral fellows for over 45 years. Besides being awarded <keyword id="100507" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Padma-Bhushan">Padma Bhushan</keyword> in 1967, admavati also won the Padma Vibhushan in 1992, Harvard Medical International Award in 2003, B.C. Roy Award in 1975, Kamala Menon Research Award in 1975 and several others. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-tests-prashant-bhushans-resolve-with-a-1-fine-for-critical-tweets/articleshow/77846880.cms">Supreme Court tests Prashant Bhushan's resolve with a ₹1 fine for 'critical' tweets</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/education/news/thousands-of-indians-tweet-rip_pokhriyal-after-the-education-ministry-decides-to-hold-neet-and-jee-exams-in-september/articleshow/77846991.cms">Thousands of Indians tweet #RIP_POKHRIYAL after the Education Ministry decides to hold NEET and JEE exams in September</a>

You Searched For "prashant bhushan fine" and got 10 results

Supreme Court tests Prashant Bhushan's resolve with a ₹1 fine for 'critical' tweets

Prabhjote Gill