When silence is not the answer
The Hindu“I live with the realisation that I have received from this institution much more than I have had the opportunity to give it…. When counsel for Bhushan had questioned the bench’s decision to prioritise this case in the absence of physical functioning of the court due to the lockdown, Justice Arun Mishra’s move to fix an early date for the next hearing by an appropriate bench even after his retirement, is sure to raise eyebrows. Flaws in Sentence hearing In his written submissions before the Supreme Court, Bhushan’s counsel, Rajeev Dhavan, has underlined his grievance that the complainant in the tweets case, Mahek Maheshwari, a prominent Bharatiya Janata Party member, was successful in getting his petition heard by the Supreme Court despite his failure to secure the consent of the Attorney General for India as required by law. Freedom of expression The Supreme Court initiated the contempt proceedings against Bhushan using its inherent powers under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, instead of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Bhushan contempt case has outraged the civil society, with people from all walks of life registering their protest against the Supreme Court’s disproportionate response to his tweets.