- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court fines Prashant Bhushan Re. 1 for contempt of Court for his tweets against the Judiciary
In the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his contemptuous tweets against the Judiciary, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has fined Bhushan with Re.1 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry by September 15.The Supreme Court also added that, in case Bhushan defaults in payment of the fine, he will have to undergo an imprisonment of three months and would...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
In the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his contemptuous tweets against the Judiciary, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has fined Bhushan with Re.1 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry by September 15.
The Supreme Court also added that, in case Bhushan defaults in payment of the fine, he will have to undergo an imprisonment of three months and would be debarred from practising for three months.
Justice Arun Mishra said that in this case, the Court not only gave an opportunity but also directly and indirectly persuaded him to express regret and withdraw his statements. However he did not pay heeds to the directions of the Court and publicized his statements thereby bringing further disrepute to the Court.
The bench had also taken into consideration the advice given by the Attorney General KK Venugopal. The Attorney General had urged the Supreme Court to take a compassionate view in the case. The Attorney General had said that Prashant Bhushan should be warned and that there was no need of punishing him.
On August 25, the Supreme Court had reserved orders over the quantum of punishment in this case after Bhushan refused to apologize over his two tweets on the Judiciary.