When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins, Prashant Bhushan said (File)
Prashant Bhushan said today that he had decided to submit to the Supreme Court order fining him Re 1 for contempt of court and would "respectfully pay the fine" just as he would have submitted to any other lawful punishment. The Supreme Court had told the lawyer activist to pay the fine or face three months in jail or a three-year ban on practising in the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court of India wins, every Indian wins, he said.
Prashant Bhushan had earlier refused to apologise or retract his tweets on the judiciary, saying he considered them the discharge of his "highest duty" and apologising would be contempt of his conscience and the court.
He said today that he had decided to submit himself to the order even though he reserved the right to seek a review of the conviction and sentencing.
"I have had the greatest respect for the institution of the Supreme Court. I have always believed it to be the last bastion of hope, particularly for the weak and the oppressed who knock at its door for the protection of their rights, often against a powerful executive," Mr Bhushan said.
"My tweets were not intended in any way to disrespect the Supreme Court or the judiciary as a whole, but were merely meant to express my anguish, at what I felt, was a deviation from its sterling past record."
Mr Bhushan said the issue was never about "me vs the judges, much less about me vs the Supreme Court".
Every Indian, he said, wanted a strong and independent judiciary. "Obviously if the court gets weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen," he said.
"What is very heartening is that this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech and seems to have encouraged many people to stand up and speak out against the injustices in our society," said Mr Bhushan.
"I am more confident now than ever that truth shall prevail. Long live democracy! Satyameva Jayate."
The Supreme Court said it had shown magnanimity with the Re 1 punishment but asserted that while freedom of expression is important, the rights of others should also be respected.