Days after ‘gracefully’ accepting the punishment meted out to him by the apex court, Advocate Prashant Bhushan has decided to file a review petition in the Supreme Court against its verdict and the punishment meted out to him.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan files review petition in the Supreme Court against its judgement convicting him and imposing a fine of Re 1, for criminal contempt of court pic.twitter.com/bF81OOglBl
— ANI (@ANI) September 14, 2020
Bhushan said that though he was submitting the Re 1 fine in the registry today, it did not mean that he had accepted the SC’s verdict. “Just because I’m paying the fine does not mean I have accepted the verdict. 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.
Saying so, the Advocate confirmed that he would be filing a review petition against the convictions and the fine inposed on him.
“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,” Bhushan said.
Prashant Bhushan ‘gracefully’ accepted the punishment
While the reason for this flip flop is unknown, it becomes imperative to note hear that barely a fortnight ago, the senior lawyer had taken to Twitter to confirm that he had ‘gracefully’ accepted the punishment. Taking to Twitter, Bhushan stated that his lawyer Rajeev Dhavan had immediately paid up the Rs 1, that the SC had decided as his penalty.
The SC had on August 31, announced the quantum of punishment for Prashant Bhushan in the contempt case. The court had asked Bhushan to pay the penalty of Rs 1 for being guilty of contempt of court or face three months of jail time and suspension of his law practice in the apex court for 3 years.
SC holds the advocate guilty of contempt
Last month, the Supreme Court had held advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court. The case pertained to two tweets where Prashant Bhushan had cast aspersions against the Supreme Court and specifically, CJI Bobde.
