Re 1 Fine for Prashant Bhushan a Victory or Vindication of Guilt?
What precedence does the verdict on the suo moto contempt case against Prashant Bhushan set for the future?
The Supreme Court ordered lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan to pay a Re 1 fine as punishment for contempt of court by 15 September, failing to do which, he could be facing three months in jail along with a three-year ban from practising law.
At a press conference after the verdict, Bhushan announced that he proposed to submit to the order as he would to any another lawful punishment, and respectfully pay the fine. He also said that he never intended to offend the judiciary, but wanted to express his grief on a "deviation from its record".
While some hail it as a watershed moment for the freedom of speech, others believe that accepting the fine is an admission of guilt.
How should we view the quantum of punishment? What message does this finally send? Is it a victory for Bhushan or is it a vindication of his guilt?
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)