Raju Korti
The problem with over-reach of activism is it makes people lose sight of rationale. Adv Prashant Bhushan, considered by a lobby in the country as a legal luminary, is a stark example. The public interest lawyer has in the past often got away by cocking a snook at the decisions of the apex court but this time nemesis has caught up, although I would like to believe that he has scraped through with a token Re 1 fine. True to his nature, he has made an absurd and strange statement saying that he has paid the fine but that does not mean he accepts the verdict. He has resolved to file a review in the same court that he has derided earlier in his considered wisdom.
Anyone who has a fair hang of the law should know that Adv Bhushan is trying to make a virtue out of necessity and has actually no choice. The fact that he has ended up paying a fine itself can be interpreted that he has accepted the verdict. Even if he were to be sentenced to imprisonment, he would have had no choice but to enjoy hospitality of the state that he so abhors. The climax is the public interest lawyer wants to file a review petition with the same institution that he has been at loggerheads all along. Having said that, it makes little sense to stop him from practicing law when he actually doesn't do much of it. Activism doesn't leave him with any time.
Adv Bhushan is three years younger than me. I completed my post graduation in Constitutional Law before he did and with better marks. While he chose to become a practicing lawyer, I chose to leave my legal knowledge by the wayside to pursue a career in the media. I haven't seen Bhushan argue any of the 500 cases that he proclaims to have taken up for "good causes". However, I do know for sure that he expends little time on paid cases while branding others of his ilk as "amoral". His real stake to fame is his relentless activism that has pitchforked him into situations that have done little to enhance his standing.
As someone who has tagged with social activist Anna Hazare, Adv Bhushan has been advocating vociferously for judicial accountability, and to be fair to him, it was because of his crusade that the judges of the courts had to declare and post their assets on the court websites. But somewhere in this over-zealousness, Adv Bhushan took upon himself the cause of "cleansing the Judiciary" and began to transgress the boundaries of law. In one of his interviews, he openly called as many as 16 former chief justices of the Supreme Court as corrupt. It resulted in an expected backlash with Adv Harish Salve filing a contempt plea against him. The Supreme Court ordered him to apologize but Adv Bhushan instead launched himself into a lengthy harangue why he felt the judges were corrupt. It didn't occur to his mind that there was little or no way of getting any documentary evidence because the judges are immune to investigation.
Adv Bhushan then decided to strike at the very roots of what he believes is the malaise. Since then he has trained his guns on certain provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, which comparatively is a recent law compared to most of the antiquated laws framed during the British rule. He has just stopped short of scrapping the act that the Supreme Court will never do as the Constitution leaves the sanctity or merits of any law to the discretion of the Judiciary. It is like handing over a razor to someone and asking him to cut his own throat. To expect that any Tom, Dick and Harry will be allowed to file an FIR against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India is surreal to say the least. His fight for the Jan Lokpal Bill had some merit but what gave away was his penchant to file PILs in what he believes are cases that call for government accountability. The gloves were off with his open defence of Naxals where he even embarrassed the Congress.
A couple of years back I had posted, more in jest than any seriousness that there was one way Bhushan could wriggle out of the spate of contempt pleas against him. All he had to do was to tell the Supreme Court that he was absent when the Contempt of Courts Act was being taught in the class. He did nothing of the kind. His run in with the top court ended when he was found guilty of contempt for two tweets he made. One where he criticized the role played by previous four chief justices, and two, where he made a snide remark on the Chief Justice of India posing on a motor-cycle without a mask. The tweets were thought of "shaking the public confidence in the Judiciary."
It is not for me to comment on the merits of Adv Bhushan's opinions on the conduct of courts and judges but he has certainly ruffled feathers with his political beliefs. He calls it as voice of conscience little realizing that each individual is open to define conscience as per own understanding. His conscience doesn't seem to match the conscience of the courts. Yet, it tells him to fight the Supreme Court decision by filing a review plea in the same court. Some optimism and dichotomy that!
I studiously avoided writing about Adv Bhushan's controversies because it was all too evident. So this evening I ended up writing another wisecrack, saying he reminds me of the line from an old Mukesh song: "Jalta hua diya hoon magar roshni nahi."
No comments:
Post a Comment