Advertisement

Doesn't mean I have accepted SC verdict, says lawyer Prashant Bhushan as he pays Re 1 fine

Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan on Monday (September 14) paid Re 1 fine which was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in August in a contempt case. Bhushan paid the amount in the Supreme Court registry.

  • Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan on Monday (September 14) paid Re 1 fine which was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in August in a contempt case.
  • Bhushan paid the amount in the Supreme Court registry.
  • While announcing the fine, the SC had said that Bhushan can face jail for three months and a ban from practising for three years if he fails to deposit the fine by September 15.

Trending Photos

Doesn't mean I have accepted SC verdict, says lawyer Prashant Bhushan as he pays Re 1 fine

Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan on Monday (September 14) paid Re 1 fine which was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in August in a contempt case. Bhushan paid the amount in the Supreme Court registry.

While announcing the fine, the SC had said that Bhushan can face jail for three months and a ban from practising for three years if he fails to deposit the fine by September 15.

"Just because I'm submitting the fine does not mean I have accepted the verdict. We are filing a review plea today. We have filed a writ petition that there must be an appeal procedure created for conviction under contempt," he said.

Bhushan was held guilty of contempt of the apex court for tweets criticising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the SC. "A truth fund has been created, (with) each Re 1 (given by people). We will use the truth fund to help those who are being harassed for speaking out," he said.

It is to be noted that Bhushan had also approached the SC seeking the right to appeal against his conviction.

Earlier, the SC had sought an unconditional apology from Bhushan and he had replied saying, "We gave several opportunities and encouragement to (Prashant Bhushan) to express regret. He not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press."

The lawyer had said that he considered it the discharge of his "highest duty" and apologising would be contempt of his conscience and the court. He had also told before the SC that open criticism was necessary to "safeguard the democracy and its values."