ADVERTISEMENT
Delhi Bar Council asks Bhushan to appear before it over SC conviction in contempt case
Ashish Tripathi
DHNS
Last Updated IST
Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan addresses a press conference, after Supreme Court imposed a token fine of one rupee as punishment in a contempt case against him, in New Delhi. Credit: PTI
Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan addresses a press conference, after Supreme Court imposed a token fine of one rupee as punishment in a contempt case against him, in New Delhi. Credit: PTI

The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has issued notice to advocate Prashant Bhushan to explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for his tweets and conviction by the Supreme Court for contempt of court.

In a letter issued on September 21, the BCD's honorary secretary Ajayinder Sangwan sought Bhushan's presence either through person or a counsel in the office on October 24.

Reacting to the development, Bhushan said, "So, Bar Council now wants to gag lawyers from speaking critically about the Judiciary!"

Earlier this month, the Bar Council of India, the apex regulatory body for the lawyers, has sought examination of Bhushan's case following his conviction and sentence of Re one for contempt of court by the Supreme Court.

It has directed the Bar Council of Delhi, where Bhushan is enrolled as an advocate, to examine the matter and proceed as per law and rules to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

It has said the tweets and statements made by Bhushan, advocate and the judgment of the Supreme Court needs thorough study and examination by the Bar Council in the light of the statutory duties, powers and functions conferred on it.

The Council relied upon Sections 24A and 35 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder, allowing disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer held guilty of moral turpitude or professional or other misconduct.

Bhushan, held guilty of Suo Motu criminal contempt on August 14, refused to tender apology or express regret for tweets, leading to a fine of Re one or three months jail and debar from practice for three years.

He maintained his tweets posted on June 27 and 29 were bona fide beliefs and were meant to express his anguish with the Supreme Court for "a deviation from its sterling past record".

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 23 September 2020, 13:16 IST)