The Prashant Bhushan Case: Critical Analysis On The Supreme Court Verdict And His Tweets

We all have heard about the Prashant Bhushan’s case verdict. 

Do you know what all has precisely happened? Why was Re 1 fine imposed on the activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan? 

Let’s first know who Prashant Bhushan is? 

Here we go! 

Who is Prashant Bhushan? 

prashant bhushan new

Prashant Bhushan is an activist and public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court of India. He was a member of the team of India Against Corruption (IAC) movement recognized as Team Anna that supported the campaign for the implementation of the Jan Lokpal Bill. 

After a split in IAC, he helped Team Anna in forming the Aam Aadmi Party. In 2015, he made numerous allegations against the party’s leadership, it’s functioning, and its perversion from the center ideology, values, and consignments. He is among the founders of Swaraj Abhiyan and Sambhaavnaa, an Institute of Public Policy and Politics.

Now let’s move on to Prashant Bhushan’s tweet on CJI Bobde and Supreme Court. 

On June 27, he tweeted: “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs”.

On June 29, he tweeted a picture of CJI Bobde sitting on a Harley Davidson superbike, commenting that the CJI was sitting on a bike belonging to a BJP leader, at a time when the Supreme Court was “denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice” because it was in lockdown mode.

For the above two tweets, the Supreme Court took action and asked him to pay a fine of Re 1 or face imprisonment for three years. Prashant Bhushan chose to pay the penalty and tweeted his picture of paying the penalty with a lengthy message of the right to speak and democracy. 

Now the question comes why the Supreme Court took action on the above tweets? 

Let’s understand this one by one. 

Let’s start with the tweet published on June 27. 

The tweet means that if historians look back from the future and talk about the destruction of democracy, they will enlist the last 4 CJI of India and the Supreme Court as the reason behind them. 

Now first understand who the last 4 CJI is? 

The last four CJI are as follows with their tenure:

  • Jagdish Singh Khehar: January 4, 2017 – August 27, 2017
  • Dipak Misra: August 28, 2017 – October 2, 2018
  • Ranjan Gogoi: October 3, 2018 – November 17, 2019
  • Sharad Arvind Bobde: November 18, 2019 – April 23, 2021)

The question comes why these four CJI will be named as the reason for the destruction of democracy in India. 

The first CJI in the above list is CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar.

cji l pti

His name has been added in the list as he gave notable verdicts on the Triple talaq case, the 2G spectrum fraud case, and other prominent cases like the reinstate the Congress-led Arunachal Pradesh Government. 

CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar was highly criticized for his verdict on triple talaq. The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMM) and other bodies criticized for giving the verdict on the triple talaq case. This became a business as the other person asked a considerable amount from the woman and raped her after getting married till the time he is not fully satisfied to leave her. Even he used to ask money for divorcing her. The condition of the woman was in hell due to triple talaq. This injustice destroyed many lives of women. She was abused, raped, tortured, forced to death, and many more things happened in the name of triple talaq.

See also  Caste census debate, and the government stand over the year. Why is the government opposing it in 2021?

So is Prashant Bhushan in support of the injustice and abuse that happened to the Muslim woman in the country? Or was against the Government who introduced the triple talaq bill? What is the reason behind accusing the Chief Justice of India for the destruction of democracy? 

The second CJI in the list is CJI Dipak Misra.

876314 87667 jyxuiixlvq 1524219540

His name has been added to the list. He gave notable verdicts on the Nirbhaya rape case, legalizing the LGBTQ community, and other prominent cases like the entry for women of menstruating age group into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The gist of the nirbhaya rape case:

On December 16, 2012, a brutal gang rape happened that set the whole Delhi on fire. Nirbhaya was gang-raped by four men in a DTC bus and was attacked with a steel rod that caused damage to her intestine and took her last breath after fighting so long on December 29, 2012.

Just after the two weeks, she left the battle for her justice. Meanwhile, the whole country came down to the street for protest and demanded justice for Nirbhaya. A fast track court was established for women, and on March 21, 2013, the rape law in the country was amended. 

The new anti-rape law, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, was imposed to punish sex crimes, redefined rape, and made punishments more stringent that included death for repeat rape offenders.

After seven years, on March 20, 2020, all the four rapists were hanged to death. The judgment of the death sentence was given by the CJI Dipak Misra. In this verdict, what wrong he did that destroyed the democracy of India? Is the death sentence to a rapist wrong? Was the injustice to be supported? 

A gist of Sabrimala temple case:

At a temple at Sabrimala in Kerala, there was a ban on the entry for women at reproductive age. This ban is said to be out of respect to the celibate nature of the deity (underage teenage Male) in the Sabrimala temple. 

The ban was uplifted after the petition was filed. It is weird about the mentality of men in India. They worship in the Kamakhya Devi mandir, which is said that the vaginal part of the Devi was dropped here. The temple even gets closed on the menstruating days that are said to be in every June four consecutive days. 

So wasn’t injustice happening at Sabrimala temple? Now you won’t speak about gender equality from the Constitution of India? 

The third CJI is CJI Ranjan Gogoi in the list mentioned above.

cji ranjan gogoi

CJI Ranjan Gogoi is known for his most historical verdict on Ayodhya Ram Mandir. 

See also  How Is Internet Exchange Important For India?

The historic Ram Mandir Nirmaan at Ayodhya:

No one can ever forget the verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute case. CJI Ranjan Gogoi headed the bench of the Ayodhya land dispute case and included justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer.

The judgment proclaimed that the Centre is demanded to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building the Babri Masjid, and Nirmohi Akhada will be constructing the Ram Janmbhoomi on the disputed land that is said to be the Janmbhoomi of Lord Ram.

In a 1024-page verdict, the Supreme Court commanded that the masjid should be formed at a “prime location at Ayodhya,” and trust should be formed in the upcoming three months for the construction of the Ram Janmbhoomi Mandir at the land where Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict case was more than 100 decades old, and no judgment was passed on it. But CJI Ranjan Gogoi gave an excellent verdict so that no religious emotion would be hurt. With the historic CJI, Ranjan Gogoi cleared the ways for the construction of both Ram Janmbhoomi Mandir and Babri Masjid. 

On August 5, 2020, the Ram Janbhoomi Pooja (groundbreaking ceremony) took place at the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Janmbhoomi land. The ceremony was headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath.

After so many disagreements made by various political parties in the Ram Mandir Nirmaan due to the widespread of the novel coronavirus, the Bhoomi pujan was handled successfully.

The Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has announced that the construction of Ram Janmbhoomi Mandir will be built in the upcoming 3 to 3.5 years.

The Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust also sees ahead to receive financial support from 10 crore families across the nation to construct the ‘bhavya ‘and beautiful Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

So was the verdict injustice to any of the community? Or Prashant Bhushan has felt some personal agendas to be disturbed by the verdict passed by the CJI Ranjan Gogoi. And, How the destruction of democracy happened in a verdict that says both the notable infrastructure will be built in Ayodhya so no religious emotion could get hurt.

The third justice in the above mention list is Sharad Arvind Bobde.


He was a part of the Ram Janmbhoomi case verdict and prominent cases like Aadhar.

I have already told you about the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict case, and now let’s just give you a gist of the Adhaar case verdict. The verdict said that no Indian citizen without an Aadhaar card could be deprived of basic services and government subsidies.

So, where all four CJI judgments lead to the destruction of democracy? No, where your answer would be, I guess. So now how Prashant Bhushan said that the Supreme Court caused the destruction of the democracy? The functions and the procedures of the Supreme Court have changed and improved within the past decades.

If you want to say about the destruction of democracy, then you must say that Kanhaiya Kumar should be hanged till death in the case of saying anti-national slogans at the JNU campus. As in the name of democracy, people are becoming terrorists, going against the nation, doing anti-national things. In the name of the right to speak, people are framing slogans of Bharat tere tukde honge Inshallah! 

See also  Death toll due to COVID-19 rises to 2,649; cases climb to 81,970: Health Ministry

So there is no end of democracy in the country; either the democracy is taken for granted. As countries like Saudi Arabia has laws of the shoot at the site on the people, who dares to say anti-national things. The Supreme Court is the most prestigious and honorary regulations and laws institution of India. Its name should not be used in any disrespectful manner and to support personal agendas.

The second tweet by Prashant Bhushan

We were now coming to the second tweet by the Prashant Bhushan. After two days to cover up the illogical tweet, he tweeted and pointed out about the phots of CJI Bobde. 


Yes, it was not fair what CJI Bobde did. He didn’t wear a mask before riding the bike. So yes, CJI should take care of these small things whenever he is more excited about anything.

The 50 lakhs Harley Davidson bike

The connection of the 50 lakhs Harley Davidson bike with the son of a BJP leader is true. But it is totally his personal choice and preference. If he is a CJI, you can’t force him to not do things of his will out of his working hours. We all are known about the vacations of Rahul Gandhi, so he is a political leader that won’t let him not allow him to go on vacations. And the matter of 50 lakhs, CJI borrowed the bike, he is not the owner of it. Whereas, Prashant Bhushan himself prints a good amount of money in the single hearing. His minimum fees are 50 lakh, so now where is the difference?

The lengthy tweets about standing for injustice

pb tweet

Now about his lengthy tweets on, he won’t keep quiet as he has the right to speak and will always stand for justice. So, where is your justice to question the CJI who punished nirbhaya rapists? Where was your justice in questioning the CJI who banned triple talaq? You are talking about justice and laws, but where are your ethics when you disrespect the judicial institution being a lawyer? You enjoy luxuries due to the judicial institution and disrespects it, so where are your general human ethics before anything? 

The penalty story:

After the case was filed in the Supreme Court, they imposed a penalty of Re 1 as the penalty to be charged or three years of imprisonment for the tweets made by Prashant Bhushan.

If Supreme Court has asked lakhs or crores in the penalty, then it would have been questioned, but still, Prashant Bhushan has paid the demanded penalty and never chose to go for the imprisonment. If he is so much on the speaking right and standing for the right, then why didn’t he chose imprisonment? Why was it too difficult for the activist, and the penalty was a much easy option for the lawyer.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button
%d bloggers like this:

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker