The final denouement of the Prashant Bhushan contempt of court proceedings saga - a rupee fine else three months in gaol and three years debarment from legal practice.
Alas ! Times change, but history continues to script much the same stories, only with different characters, and role reversals. In 1649, the defendant, King Charles I ,on trial for treason railed “No earthly power can justly call me, who am your king, in question as a delinquent,” for “the king can do no wrong." Tragically, he lost both his crowns , the one on top of his torso as well as the one that adorned the top.The days of kings are over. But it seems that the King Charles’ shriek still echo in our courts.
Bhushans are still found guilty of the most heinous of crimes - 'Lese Majeste', speaking, alleging against the Court.
About merits or otherwise per se much has already been said. I won't add my stupidity to it. But the case resurrects some old talking points about our judicial system. All flowing from possible infringements of settled judicial maxims,
first- "Nemo iudex in causa sua"-no-one is judge in his own cause" ,
second, Lord Hewart's oft quoted ruling "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
1. Should judges appoint themselves without parliamentary scrutiny ?
2. Should their misconduct be probed by themselves as laid down in impeachment proceedings ?
3. Should there be a SOP for dates, constitution and allocation of benches to cases before the courts thereby reducing discretionary interventions of CJ to a minimum ?
4. The state being the biggest litigant, should it be permitted to ,and for the judges to accept, its offers of post-retiral offices ?
5. Should courts adjudicate contempt of court ?
6. Isn't the alternative penalty of banning practice in courts for three years imposed on Mr Bhushan a denial of litigant's right to choose his counsel ? Stretching the point further, does it amount to judiciary deciding who shall not argue a case before it ?
The sentencing is not a happy augury for a clean judicial system. It will have a deep chilling effect. None will henceforth point out deficiencies in the functioning of courts and conduct of judges. Why even criticism of the judicial system may be deemed blasphemous. Now Damocles' Sword hangs over all Bhushans.
Even as I write this, I am filled with trepidation. Have I asked questions that seem slanderous enough to invite a contempt of court ? God save me.
