Prashant Bhushan : A Lawyer Willing To Be Disrobed In The Pursuit Of Justice
[The contempt case on Prashant Bhushan is a reminder that like the folklore of Lady Godiva, lawyers too may have to be willing to be ‘disrobed’ — albeit metaphorically, for the pursuit of justice]
Lady Godiva And The Metaphorical ‘Disrobing’ In The Pursuit of Justice
The folklore of Lady Godiva of the 11th century goes like this. She was married to Leofric, the Lord of Coventry in England, who imposed a series of oppressive taxes on his people. Inspite of Lady Godiva pleading with her husband, he refused to budge and quipped instead — “If you ride naked on a horseback, through the center of the city, I may perhaps change my mind.” Lady Godiva did just that. Covering her body with her hair, she sent out a message to the people of Coventry to stay inside their houses, as she rode naked through the city. She then confronted her husband, who shocked by — how far she was willing to go for removal of the taxes, did as she wanted.
While this story may seem like a stretch of imagination, even for those in the pursuit of justice, one can very well imagine, seeing the unfolding trials of Senior Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan — a credible and committed voice to public service — that lawyers too, may have to go to the extent of being metaphorically disrobed, to be a beacon of courage in an otherwise growing culture of sycophancy.
Whether Leofric ever asked Godiva to apologise for her brazen act, or if he apologized instead, for having put her through that ordeal is not recorded in history. But the Supreme Court of India, has after its 108-page judgment on 14th August, 2020, holding Mr. Bhushan to be in criminal contempt of court, for his two tweets, asked him to tender an ‘unconditional apology’ and have a ‘sense of remorse’, before 24th August, 2020 — which he has — in a classic Gandhian way, refused.
The contempt case against Mr. Prashant Bhushan was for two tweets — one in which he put up a photograph of the Current Chief Justice of India — Justice S A Bobde, riding a Harley Davidson bike during the lockdown (said to be registered in the name of a BJP-RSS politician from Nagpur) and second — in which he made remarks about the role of the last four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the destruction of democracy. A lot has been written about the facts of the case, the Reply filed by Mr. Bhushan, the arguments in the Court, the judgment of the court, etc. so I will skip repeating all that here.
There is also a lot to be said, about the inherent illegalities and unconstitutionality in the process followed in Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s case — right from the Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of the matter [inspite of the Petition filed by one Mahek Maheshwari] ; to the illegal exercise of power by the Supreme Court Registry in disallowing the Intervention Application by Aruna Roy & 15 other civil society members ; to the lack of sound reasoning and logic in the Court’s judgment ; to the disregard of the Attorney General’s view in the matter by the Supreme Court [which is a constitutional requirement]. The added irony that the Supreme Court went on to revise its earlier Order, now featuring the Attorney General — Mr. K.K. Venugopal’s name, without any explanation as to why he was cut short during this submissions, and why his name did not feature earlier, is yet another mind twisting unsolved puzzle in this case. These issues have been highlighted in some well articulated pieces. It has also been argued why the contempt case has the chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. So I will not elaborate on that here either.
In this piece, I want us to explore — the bigger picture that needs contemplation in this case. Why, in particular is Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s case — a tale worth telling, both to our younger generation and our own generation.
Explaining The Contempt Case To Your 4-Year-Old : David v. Goliath
How would one explain the recent case of contempt against Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s to a four year old? Well, it can be to a five year old, or a 10 year old but the reason I choose a four year old is — to pay homage to Denzel Washington, who stars as Joe Miller (a homophobe), trying to understand if and how he can legally represent his client Andrew Beckett (played by Tom Hanks), who is HIV Positive and ousted from his company on that ground. Denzel’s famous line in this movie, Philadelphia (1993) — “All right, explain this to me like I’m a 4-year-old, OK, because there’s an element to this thing I just cannot get through my thick head”, has since then become a catchphrase for lawyers, used by judges and lawyers alike.
You could say — Mr. Prashant Bhushan is a ‘big’ lawyer in the ‘biggest’ court of the country, who happened to question the ‘biggest’ judge therein by showing a picture on a public forum. So he is being punished.
Your 4-year-old is likely to ask — So is asking questions a bad thing, especially to ‘big people’ and what may become of Mr. Bhushan, now.
Once you know you have got the attention of your 4-yead-old, you need to take this opportunity to drive home an essential point which is that- all of history is replete with the stories of such individuals, who without the fear of consequences, and irrespective of the power of the adversary they faced, stood up to do the right thing. Infact you can try impress upon the young mind — in a snapshot — the very process by which all change comes about in the society.
In other words, you could narrate the story of Mr. Bhushan to show that he is not just a pea in a pod, or just another lawyer in the Supreme Court, but that his story reveals a deeper pattern — it is a story of how all social change have come, across countries and cultures, since the dawn of human existence.
When I was young and contemplating the choice of profession, my father inspired me to pursue — Law. Summing up all his forceful arguments in favour of ‘Law’ as a career, he said — “Unless you know how to stand up for yourself, how will you ever stand up for others — go study law, and equip yourself to articulate your voice.”
But as I grow into the Profession, I realise, that standing up for others, and sometimes even for oneself is not an easy thing to do. One may think, from a distance, that Mr. Bhushan, who has decades of public service experience, several reported judgments to his name, scores of books and articles that mention his work, may have it easy, But the contempt case against him, for two tweets, suggests that even when one has a lifetime’s work to demonstrate one’s commitment to democracy and its enshrined values, one is still vulnerable to an alleged blow to his legal career, by being charged for contempt of the court, where he practices.
And yet, the outpouring of support in his favour, from all quarters — judges, lawyers, and common people, indicates that apparently what may seem like a setback to his legal reputation, has had the exact contrary effect — this case has made Mr. Prashant Bhushan a legend — who like the biblical tale from the Book of Samuel, won victory in a David v. Goliath combat, by refusing to be defeated by the metaphorical giant that seeks to crush dissent. This contempt case against Mr. Bhushan, has catapulted him right at the front of a marching army of Davids, who are angry and frustrated about the crushing of dissent in the Indian democracy.
[Note : I am not necessarily suggesting that the Supreme Court of India is a giant — but given my own opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong in charging Mr. Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt, I am trying to unearth the bigger takeaway for those who may agree that the exercise of contempt power in this case is wrong and an illegal exercise of power.]
As the army of Davids, march to the tunes of their own conscience, standing fearless against oppressive forces, we also need to understand some truths as 30-year-olds ourselves.
Ask Not Who The Goliath Is, Ask Instead Who He Serves : Story For Your 30-Year-Olds
The legend of David v. Goliath, even as used in the book by that name by Malcolm Gladwell, has to evolve with time. We have to recognize, that in the modern day world, neither is there any one Goliath, nor any one David and most importantly, as Gladwell argues, that David wins not despite of his size but because of it. There seems to an ongoing battle, with several Goliaths, having special expertise in different domains. The Davids, have to understand that the modern day Goliaths are also much more sophisticatedly armed, having both money and muscle power at their disposal, sometimes with the latest technology to track each and every move of the Davids, and also that these Goliaths not only communicate amongst themselves, but they also have a network with a complex set of hierarchy — where each Goliath reports to another bigger Goliath.
While it may sometimes seem like it is best to avoid every combat like situation, and just say-do what pleases the Goliaths, it may neither be a good thing for us as individuals, as society or for democracy. Human expression — the freedom to say what you think, is quintessential, not just for a healthy democracy but also for a healthy human being. And Davids may be able to win, if they show speed, agility, passion as they are not alone as Mr. Bhushan’s case shows, — there are several others who may be willing to speak up, if one dares to.
The Bible reminds us (Proverbs 26:28), “A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.” It emphasises again (Proverbs 27: 6) : “The wounds from a loved-one are worth it; people who don’t really love you will tell you want you want to hear.”
The idea that — criticism is always obstructionist has no rationale either in logic or experience. Human civilization, and anything worth valuing, has come about through a constant process of passionate friction between ideas and people. Friction is good as long as it is managed well. Suppression, on the other hand, of any type, always spells disaster.
In Conclusion
Mr. Bhushan’s decades of public service work, being a fierce voice of reason for the voiceless in the power corridors, and his forays into politics — demonstrates, that the story of legends is neither unidimensional, nor predictable. You may or may not agree with this politics, words or arguments but it is his character, his values, and his fearlessness that to me seems to make him a definite winner, irrespective of the ultimate judgment in his case. This case has positioned him as a champion for free speech and expression, against an oppressive regime, where politicians and judges, seem equally culpable. It has catapulted him as a default ‘Leader’, a voice of reason — that all who are angry about the crushing of dissent in this nation can rally around, whether he likes it or not and whether he intends it to be so or not.
The contempt case is also a sober reminder for all who care about the democracy and its future, what its founding champions always knew — preserving democracy takes work. It takes constant vigilance, fearless speech, and selfless conduct. But when we lose sight of the value of fearless expression, and are attracted instead to sycophancy — looking at the temporary prosperity of bootlickers, may we remind ourselves -
There is an element truth about ‘Truth’ — the more it is dragged down, the stronger it emerges. The more it is hidden, the brighter it sparkles.
Here’s hoping that in imposing a sentence on Mr. Prashant Bhushan on 24th August, 2020 (in about 24 hours from now), he will not literally be disrobed (by suspending him from legal practice in the Supreme Court of India). If he is, this saga too — like Lady Godiva’s legend, may be remembered for a long time.
Avani Bansal is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India. She is also Secretary of the Delhi State of All India Professionals’ Congress. She can be contacted atadvocateavanibansal@gmail.com; Tweets at @bansalavani
