Prashant Bhushan, having been found guilty of contempt of court at the instigation of young protege of Subramanian Swamy, seems to be taking comfort in V.Venkatesan's article in the Wire which, ludicrously, claims that 'future historians' will vindicate Bhushan. The truth is Bhushan will be merely a footnote to a paragraph about either the ascent of Kejriwal or the decline and fall of PIL activism.
Bhushan's first tweet was-
“CJI rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”
Since the picture appended showed the CJI astride a motorcycle, but not riding it, the first part of the tweet could be said to be merely injurious to the CJI in a private capacity. He has a remedy as a private citizen. But what could be said is not what the Bench actually says. Why? The second part of the tweet affirms a glaring falsehood- viz. the CJI is denying access to 'fundamental rights' because he is gallivanting in cahoots with the Ruling Party.
Venkatesan writes-
Dividing the tweet into two parts, the bench found that the first part dealing with the CJI riding a motorcycle without a mask or helmet was not contemptuous because it is a criticism of the CJI in his individual capacity.
Venkatesan is lying. Had the first part appeared by itself, this could be said. But because it appeared in conjunction with the second, it couldn't be said and wasn't actually said by the Bench at all.
Bhushan's argument was that seeing that picture had caused him anguish which caused him to write nonsense. The Bench rejected his 'anguish' defense. It pointed out that Bhushan himself had been heard by the Bench despite the lockdown. He was lying and he knew the Bench knew he was lying. Indeed, it is now common knowledge that Bhushan, anguished or not, is a malicious, contemptible, liar.
It is only the second part which, according to the bench, is false
No. The Bench says the two parts taken together are false, malicious and amount to a very serious contempt of court.
and has the tendency to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of the CJI and that of the judiciary.
but what makes it 'contempt of court' is its malicious, mendacious, calculated intent- notwithstanding any supposed 'anguish' Bhushan may claim to be subject to.
Venkatesan writes-
A tweet, by the very fact that it cannot exceed 240 characters, has to be precise and brief,
but it does not have to be malicious, mendacious and constitute a very serious type of contempt of court
and therefore, devoid of qualifications, if its writer finds it unnecessary.
What the writer finds unnecessary is irrelevant. Only the Court can decide what is or isn't contempt. The Bench cited Brahma Prakash Sharma (1953) and C.K Daphtary (1971). It is not necessary to show that administration of Justice is harmed. It is enough if such is the tendency or likelihood.
Bhushan's affidavit shows that he thought he could get away with contempt of court for the legal reasons mentioned there. But, the cretin had not understood the law at all. Free speech is not stifled if it has a legal way to express itself. Bhushan, clearly, could make any point he wished without committing criminal content. Yet that is what he did because that was his deliberate choice.
The Supreme Court is a Court of Record. It alone can decide what is or isn't contempt and that too in a suo moto fashion. Bhushan's affidavit shows the parlous state of legal education and practice in India. Essentially affidavits shove in anything and everything but the kitchen sink into their petitions in the hope that something sticks.
In his reply affidavit, Bhushan has claimed that the CJI kept the court “virtually” in lockdown mode due to COVID fears (with hardly any cases being heard and those heard also by an unsatisfactory process through video conferencing).
But Bhushan and the Bench both knew that Bhushan was lying. Moreover, Bhushan was clearly suggesting that the CJI was gallivanting in cahoots with the Ruling Party for a malign purpose.
Venkatesan tells us a brazen lie-
More important, he didn’t suggest that the CJI denied citizens their fundamental right to access justice, but that the lockdown mode – which he had to impose on the court, for want of an alternative – resulted in such deprivation.
If so, why put a picture of the CJI astride a motorcycle? The inference is the fellow is off gallivanting in cahoots with the Ruling Party with the malign purpose of denying the public access to justice so as to undermine Democracy.
This is clearly the impression one would get if one reads Bhushan’s reply affidavit.
The clear impression you get is that Bhushan and his team are cretins.
But Friday’s judgment shows that the bench has not read it.
The judgment exposes its errors of fact and law in detail. The Bench must insist on shorter, smarter, affidavits. Bhushan's affidavit had to be rebutted with one equal in length. This is a waste of everybody's time.
Many others, including former judges of the Supreme Court, have criticised the court’s inability to secure the rights of the poor, marginalised and migrant workers to access justice during the lockdown.
Or before the lockdown. Why? India is very poor. It has a large number of utterly shit lawyers who write any old nonsense even when petitioning the highest court in the land.
Therefore, the bench’s move to find Bhushan alone guilty for making these remarks, while closing its eyes and ears to similar remarks made by others in other public platforms, makes one wonder whether it had been selective in invoking contempt jurisdiction against Bhushan.
This is foolish. A private person filed the case which the Attorney General refused to endorse. The Bench asserted, suo moto, the right to transfer the matter from the Administrative to its Judicial side. Which other contempt cases have been filed? Venkatesan won't tell us. What he wants to do is implant the suggestio falsi that the Bench is vindictively pursuing, off its own bat, poor anguished Bhushan.
Similarly, Bhushan also referred to widespread dissatisfaction among lawyers with the continued ‘virtual’ functioning of the court and made a fervent demand for early return, with safeguards, of its normal functioning.
The Bench has expressed its own desire for such a resumption. We all want this virus to fuck off and die already. Bhushan alone has tried to make out that the Bench is using the excuse of the lockdown for a malign purpose.
The bench has no explanation for why it found Bhushan’s grievance contemptuous, while other stakeholders have expressed similar sentiments.
No other 'stakeholder' has been stupid or malicious enough to say that the Bench- like every other good and sensible organization- is using this crisis for a malign purpose when that is clearly not the case. The Bench says Bhushan had been heard repeatedly by the Bench during the lockdown. So he knew he was lying and the Bench knew he was lying yet he went on lying rather than seeking to purge himself of contempt.
In any case, the bench didn’t suggest that the linking of the non-contemptuous part of the tweet about the CJI riding the motorcycle with the court’s functioning during the lockdown was the offence. Since such an inference was not drawn by the bench itself, it is not clear why it found him guilty.
Did Venkatesan read the judgment? Can he read? This is what it said-
Justice Krishna Iyer (who was a Leftist) observed, that after evaluating the totality of factors, if the Court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges to be scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him, who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.
In the light of these guiding principles, let us analyze the tweets, admittedly, made by the alleged contemnor No.1 which have given rise to this proceeding.
After analysing the tweets, the questions that we will have to pose is, as to whether the said tweets are entitled to protection under Article 19(1) of the Constitution as a fair criticism of the system, made in good faith in the larger public interest or not.
We have reproduced both the tweets in the order dated 22.7.2020, which is reproduced in the beginning. The first part of the first tweet states, that ‘CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet’. This part of the tweet could be said to be a criticism made against the CJI as an individual and not against the CJI as CJI.
This could be said, but it is not what the Bench finally says because of the direct connection between the first part of the tweet and the second.
However, the second part of the tweet states, ‘at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice’.Undisputedly, the said part of the statement criticizes the CJI in his capacity as the Chief Justice of India i.e. the Administrative Head of the judiciary of the country. The impression that the said part of the tweet attempts to give to a layman is, that the CJI is riding a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet, at a time when he has kept the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice. The said tweet is capable of giving an impression to a layman, that the CJI is enjoying his ride on a motorbike worth Rs.50 lakh belonging to a BJP leader, at a time when he has kept the Supreme Court in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice.
Firstly, it would be noted, that the date on which the CJI is alleged to have taken a ride on a motorbike is during the period when the Supreme Court was on a summer vacation.
In any case, even during the said period, the vacation Benches of the Court were regularly functioning. The impression that the said tweet intends to give is that the CJI as the head of the Indian judiciary has kept the Supreme Court in lockdown mode, thereby denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice. In any case, the statement, that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is factually incorrect even to the knowledge of the alleged contemnor No.1. It is a common knowledge, that on account of COVID-19 pandemic the physical functioning of the Court was required to be suspended. This was in order to avoid mass gathering in the Supreme Court and to prevent outbreak of pandemic.
However, immediately after suspension of physical hearing, the Court started functioning through video conferencing.
From 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020, various benches of the Court have been sitting regularly and discharging their duties through video conferencing. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020 is 879.
During this period, the Court has heard 12748 matters. In the said period, this Court has dealt with 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
64. It can thus be clearly seen, that the statement, that the CJI has kept the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice is patently false. It may not be out of place to mention, that the alleged contemnor No.1 has himself appeared on various occasions in number of matters through video conferencing. Not only that, but even in his personal capacity the alleged contemnor No.1 has taken recourse to the access of justice by approaching this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.131 of 2020, challenging the First Information Report lodged against him at Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot, Gujarat, wherein this Court had passed the following order on 1.5.2020:
“The Court is convened through video conferencing.
Issue notice.
In the meantime, no coercive action be
taken against the petitioner in First
Information Report No.11209052200180
lodged on 12th April, 2020 under Sections
295A/505(1)(b), 34 and 120B of the IPC
registered at the Police Station
Bhaktinagar, Rajkot, Gujarat.”
In this premise, making such wild allegation thereby giving an impression, that the CJI is enjoying riding an expensive bike, while he keeps the SC in lockdown mode and thereby denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice, is undoubtedly false, malicious and scandalous. It has the tendency to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of judiciary and the institution of the CJI and undermining the dignity and authority of the administration of justice. We are unable to accept the contention of the alleged contemnor No.1, that the said statement was a bona fide criticism made by him on account of his anguish of non functioning of the courts physically. His contention, that on account of non-physical functioning of the Supreme Court for the last more than three months, the fundamental rights of citizens, such as those in detention, those destitute and poor,
and others facing serious and urgent grievances were not being addressed or taken up for redressal, as stated herein above, is false to his own knowledge. He has made such a scandalous and malicious statement having himself availed the right of an access to justice during the said period, not only as a lawyer but also as a litigant.
Venkatesan thinks that the Bench has telepathic knowledge of an affidavit which it tears to shreds on a point by point basis.
The bench has clearly erred in analysing the tweet as it is, without considering his reply affidavit, which explains it.
How did the Bench know about Bhushan's 'anguish'? Venkatesan says 'oh, they didn't read Bhushan's affidavit'. So what is the explanation? Telepathy? Black Magic? Venkatesan won't tell us. But then he is writing for the Wire whose editor is a cretin.
If the reply affidavit is not to be considered, why insist on it as part of the procedure and a sign of extending an opportunity of being heard?
Yes, yes Venkatesan. We know Bench is unable to read. They wipe their arses on affidavists. Chee! Chee! Should use lota like normal people isn't it?
As Bhushan put it in his reply affidavit: “Due to the COVID pandemic, the subsequent lockdown and the humanitarian crisis it had created, with the Supreme Court not functioning regularly, access to justice was seriously imperilled”.
But the Supreme Court was functioning well enough to hear him!
The bench has made no reference to this explanation of his tweet in the reply affidavit.
The Bench says Bhushan himself was heard repeatedly.
None, including the bench, can deny that if the court functioned regularly, more matters could have been heard, and access to justice enhanced as a result.
But none can affirm, save for a malicious and illegal reason, that the Bench used the excuse of lockdown to go off gallivanting on motorbikes with chums from the ruling party while denying access to justice to petitioners like Bhushan himself.
Bhushan has not expressed any view on whether the normal functioning of the court amid the pandemic is feasible. But he is certainly entitled to express his hope that it should be able to function normally with the implied mandatory safeguards like social distancing and mask wearing.
He is not entitled to tell mischievous lies of a type which undermine faith in the Judiciary.
It is hard to understand how such an expression of his view could be held contemptuous.
Hard for Venkatesan certainly. This guy thinks the Bench didn't read an affidavit which it tears apart in excruciating detail. Must be Bench is doing Black Magic, no? How they can read long affidavit? Me, I am journalist for many years and I can't read anything at all. How Judges could be smarter than me? They are all the time gallivanting on motorbike, isn't it?
The bench’s argument about the second tweet, likewise, has no legs to stand on.
On the contrary, the Judgment explains in detail why, as a Court of Record, the Bench can give itself legs not just to stand but to kick Bhushan in the seat of his pants.
The text of this tweet reads:
“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.”
The Bench says ' The tweet clearly tends to give an impression, that the Supreme Court, which is a highest constitutional court in the country, has in the last six years played a vital role in destruction of the Indian democracy. There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary. We do not want to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the first part of the tweet, inasmuch as we do not want to convert this proceeding into a platform for political debate. We are only concerned with the damage that is sought to be done to the institution of administration of justice. In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.
In its judgment, the bench clearly says that it is not concerned about the first part of the second tweet,
No. It won't discuss political issues but is concerned with the 'damage' it sought to be done 'to the administration of justice'. This is what it will punish.
wherein Bhushan refers to a possibility of future historians looking back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India without a formal emergency. It is not concerned because the first part has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
No. It is concerned with the administration of justice and that is why Bhushan is being punished. The Judges don't need to discuss the state of Democracy. That is a political question. However, so far as the law of the land is concerned, Bhushan is a contemptible liar.
But it is here that the bench’s unstated and unarticulated leap in logic – which is otherwise clear to anyone who reads the judgment – gets particularly interesting.
Venkatesan can't read. Now he is talking about 'leaps of logic'. Must be a Tambram. Grant us Extremely Backward and Mentally Retarded Status right now!
In paragraph 67, the bench admits that the emergency era has been considered as the blackest era in the history of Indian democracy. Supposing if one says today, claiming to be a historian of that period, that the Supreme Court had played a dubious role in that era, with the then CJI playing an especially pliant role in aid of the executive, the current Supreme Court is not likely to consider it an offence of contempt of court.
Because the current Supreme Court can't travel back in time. Anyway, back then the last thing you needed to worry about was the Bench punishing you for contempt. You could be detained under MISA with a bumboo up your butt and the Courts would not entertain any habeas corpus writ.
This is because, in the bench’s view, the emergency era is not contemporary history, and therefore, historians of today can freely express an opinion about that era now.
We are free to express opinions on any era including our own. But if we mendaciously and maliciously impugn the Bench we may be found guilty of contempt of court.
In addition, the current bench knows that the court itself in 2017 – while declaring privacy as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy – had overruled its previous decision in A.D.M.Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, delivered during the Emergency, which was widely perceived by contemporary analysts as well as (future) historians as having contributed to the eclipse of democracy during that era.
This is silly. The right to privacy is not a defence against contempt proceedings. Habeas corpus is irrelevant.
But supposing Bhushan had written – during the Emergency – that a future historian would surely find the Supreme Court’s role in the era dubious for conniving at the destruction of democracy, would the court – at that point of time – be justified in considering such a statement contemptuous?
Yes. But Bhushan would already have been in jail with a bumboo up his butt! By contrast, his father was more circumspect and became a Law Minister and later, for a few years, a member of the BJP. Father and son joined the Aam Aadmi party but Kejriwal dumped them.
And if it did, would Bhushan be allowed to cite facts to back his claim?
He could cite what he liked. But he'd still have had a bumboo up his butt.
Coming back to the present, if Bhushan wishes to crystal gaze and predict what a future historian might say 45 years from today about the role the Supreme Court played in second decade of the 21st century – an era which has, to many, witnessed the weakening of democratic institutions – this should be considered his personal view, one to which he is surely entitled, whether one agrees or disagrees with it today.
Bhushan is entitled to say that he thinks India is run by shape-shifting lizards from Planet X. But the moment he drags in the Court into his ravings he can be found guilty of contempt.
Why is the bench so concerned with Bhushan’s predictions about what future historians might say on the Supreme Court’s role in contemporary politics?
For the reason they mention- viz. they are concerned with the damage that is sought to be done to the institution of administration of justice. In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.
They are not concerned with historians or, indeed, shape shifting lizards or anything else. They received a complaint that Bhushan was a contemnor. They examined his affidavit. They found him guilty. Why? Because he was malicious, mendacious, and sought to undermine the 'dignity and authority' of the Bench.
It is almost as if a sense of paranoia seems to have gripped the bench about what future historians may say, in the light of Bhushan’s tweets.
No. It is nothing like that at all. Bhushan may be paranoid. Political disappointments may have caused his sanity to give way. His 'anguish' may be genuine. Being fucked over by the slimy Kejriwal can't be a pleasant experience. Unlike his daddy, nobody is going to make him a Law Minister. He won't have much of a place in the history books. That rankles. It may be that the Bench will take pity on him and just fine him a couple of thousand Rupees.
In other words, the bench has found Bhushan guilty because it fears he is right about what future historians will say.
Venkatesan must be an Iyer. This is higher Iyer logic. The Bench fears future historian's censure and so does the very things which will cause those future historians to censure it! Suppose someone says 'future sexologists will criticize the Bench for fisting itself constantly.' This will cause the Bench to start fisting itself with vim and vigor so as to confirm the bad opinion of future sexologists who would otherwise have ignored them.
What those historians will say about the current Supreme Court is clearly not in the hands of the bench; but the bench believes it has the power to indict and punish someone who claims to have foreknowledge about what the future historian might say.
The Bench has that power- which is why Bhushan put up a defense. But they are concerned with present crimes and misdemeanours. Bhushan committed one. He has been found guilty. Historians and Sexologists don't matter whether they lived in the past or the future or in Imagination-land where they are now fisting Venkatesan to his great delight.
Ironically, by punishing Bhushan, the bench is unlikely to deter future historians from saying what Bhushan tweeted.
Future historians will be deterred from telling stupid lies by the fear that people might think they were stupid liars. Democracy hasn't declined in India. The Bench is not a tool of the ruling party.
If anything, future historians are likely to consider the punishment Bhushan receives for saying what he did as supporting evidence for such an assessment of our times.
If they are stupid liars, sure. But what if they aren't stupid and don't like telling lies? Bhushan is unlikely to be harshly punished. Why? The fellow received a right royal rogering from that slimy Kejriwal fellow. He was ignominiously expelled from the AAP. He will never inherit the status of his dad. The guy is now a Yogendra Yadav level loser. Like Swami Agnivesh, he will be a laughing stock.
In paragraph 68, the bench says that there cannot be any manner of doubt that the said tweet is directed against the Supreme Court, and tends to give an impression that the court has a particular role in the destruction of democracy in the last six years and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in the same. It is clear that the criticism is against the entire Supreme Court and the last four CJIs, the bench declares, as if it has made some discovery. Of course, it is.
So, Venkatesan agrees that Bhushan is guilty of contempt of court. Why not just say so?
The criticism is not against a particular judge but the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the CJI, the bench adds. The impression that the said tweet tends to convey is that the judges who have presided over the Supreme Court in the period of the last six years have played a particular role in the destruction of Indian democracy and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in it. None could have been clearer than the bench itself in its interpretation of the tweet.
Why is Venkatesan repeating himself? Has he had a stroke? No. Future historians are vigorously fisting him in Imagination-Land. Venkatesan is talking dirty to keep them at their repulsive task.
But the bench missed the essential part: Bhushan attributes this perception to future historians, and he is entitled to do so, because it is his view.
Wonderful! So no contempt of court or other crime is committed if one says- 'CJI and his brother Judges are raping my Mummy every day. They are raping their own daughters and all the dogs in the vicinity. Someone should kill these bastards and blow up the Supreme Court. In my view future historians will say this to future sexologists as they take turns fisting Venkatesan, to his great delight and delectation, in Imagination land.'
The bench may have a different view of how a future historian will consider the current Supreme Court of India. In answer to Bhushan’s tweet, it should articulate its own view, perhaps by starting a new Twitter handle for the Supreme Court.
Or, better yet, by vigorously fisting Venkatesan in Imagination-Land.
The bench then made a bizarre link between the reach of the tweet
OMG! Is Venkatesan going to demand a reach-around?
and the probable absence of good faith. It suggests:
“The publication by tweet reaches millions of people and as such, such a huge extent of publication would also be one of the factors that requires to be taken into consideration while considering the question of good faith.”
Bhushan was not expressing anguish in a private manner. His intention was mala fide. He wanted as many people as possible to believe that the Supreme Court was the tool of the Ruling Party and its actions were malign and of a wholly unconstitutional and illegal kind.
In other words, because the tweet reaches millions of people, it should be necessarily lacking in good faith.
The tweet could have been factual and have represented 'constructive criticism'. It was mendacious, malicious, defamatory and highly prejudicial. It was the gravest type of contempt of court.
How these two are linked is not at all clear.
Lack of good faith is directly linked to malice, mendacity, and the wilful and knowing performance of an act of contempt of court by an officer of that court.
Similarly, the bench’s view that because Bhushan has been a lawyer of 30 years standing, his tweets cannot be fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest:
They could have been 'fair criticism', but Bhushan chose the path of mendacity and malice despite having been an officer of the court for 30 years.
“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”
Why? Because the Bench knows that brother Judges were not tools of the ruling party. There was no conspiracy to deny justice. Bhushan, anguished or not, was lying. His action was mala fide. He may himself be frustrated at his failure in politics. This does not mean he has the right to impugn the administration of Justice by telling stupid, malicious, lies.
Again, the bench seeks to assume that these two phenomena are related, but the causal link here is not at all clear to anyone.
The causal link is that Bhushan, having great knowledge and familiarity with the Bench, knew he was telling malicious lies that too in an unprecedented manner and to an audience of millions. The only reason to acquit him of contempt would be if the Bench had private knowledge that Bhushan was right. The Bench, for some reason, is seeking to subvert Democracy and frustrate the Rule of Law and itself violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.
In other words, by finding Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for predicting what the future historian will say of the current Supreme Court, one wonders whether the bench has indicted itself, by expressing its tacit agreement with him.
No. If they agree with him, they should clear him of the charge. By not doing so they are in open, not tacit, disagreement with him. Venkatesan thinks Bhushan was an astrologer or had a crystal ball. He reported, in good faith, what he predicted. The Bench accepted his predictions but found him guilty because they wanted his predictions to come true. If someone else predicts future sexologists will criticize them for incessantly fisting themselves, they will roll up their sleeves and shove their fists up their bums so as to fully deserve that future criticism.
Bhushan, at best, could be guilty of having tried to imagine, within the limited space allowed by a tweet, a facet of the counterfactual history of the present, through the eyes of a future historian.
But this is not what he did. He said- X is the Case. Future historians will confirm X is the case because X is the case. Why? Future historians will be truthful.
The problem here is that Bhushan knew X was not the Case. He also knew that future historians would not confirm his own lie. The Bench held that Bhushan was lying in a manner injurious to 'the majesty of the Law'. Bhushan's affidavit makes no mention of counterfactual conditionals and Ramsey tests and Lewis-Stalnacker possible worlds.
Whether he is correct in his analysis is for the future historian to judge.
No. By Law, this question can only be decided by those now living who know whether or not the Bench has been corrupted in the manner Bhushan suggests, and who are empowered to do so by virtue of their sitting on the Bench deciding this very case. Present historians can talk bollocks about the Past. Future historians can say 'Kejriwal raped Bhushan while Modi watched'. It won't make it true.
Not this bench, which needs to learn what counterfactual history is all about
Counterfactuals are 'moot' if the underlying issue is res integra. But this is not the case here. The law is clear. That is why the bench does not need any lessons from a cretin like Venkatesan. Future historians however are welcome to continue fisting that imbecile in Imagination-Land.
No comments:
Post a Comment