Insincere apology, a contempt of my conscience: Prashant Bhushan

Activist-lawyer refuses to retract statement or offer apology in contempt of court case about tweets

Prashant bhushan

Senior advocate and human rights defender Prashant Bhushan today submitted a supplementary statement before the Supreme Court, in connection with his conviction for contempt of court for two tweets. It may be recalled that at the last hearing the court had granted Bhushan time to reconsider his statement.

In the supplementary statement filed today, Bhushan says “At the hearing the court asked me to take 2-3 days to reconsider the statement I made in the court. However, the order subsequently states: ‘We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires.

Refusing to reconsider his previous statement, Bhushan further says, “Today in these troubling times, the hopes of the people of India vest in this Court to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution and not an untrammeled rule of the executive. This casts a duty, especially for an officer of this court like myself, to speak up, when I believe there is a deviation from its sterling record.” He adds, “My tweets represented this bonafide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court. Therefore, an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere.”

Bhushan goes on to say, “An apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made.” He concludes saying, “If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem.”

The entire statement may be read here: 



SC grants Prashant Bhushan time before sentencing

I submit to any penalty which the court may inflict: Prashant Bhushan

Justice delivery must be Constitutional



Related Articles