Prashant Bhushan paid the Re 1 fine for his criminal contempt case
Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court Monday seeking a review of his guilty verdict in last month's criminal contempt case.
Mr Bhushan, who earlier today deposited a Re 1 fine - ordered as punishment for his comments on the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of India - said he wanted the case against him to be reheard.
In his plea, Mr Bhushan said Justice Arun Mishra - who led the bench that heard the original case and has since demitted office - should not have ruled on it as he had dismissed PILs argued by him (Mr Bhushan), including one on alleged bribes to politicians in connection with the Sahara-Birla diaries case.
The "Sahara diaries" - a collection of documents found in raids on offices belonging to the Sahara group in 2014 - reportedly carried names of politicians from different parties, along with amounts paid as bribes.
In January 2017 Mr Bhushan filed an affidavit seeking a court-monitored probe by a SIT into the alleged bribes. The case was heard by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy.
There was "reasonable apprehension", Mr Bhushan's plea today said, that he would not be getting a "fair and impartial hearing from Justice Arun Mishra".
Mr Bhushan also argued that fundamental principles had been violated in deciding his criminal contempt case as the initial petition was never given to him; the top court had turned it into a suo motu case.
That verdict, his plea today argued, made any criticism of the institutional role an offence of criminal contempt. The plea also sought an open-court hearing of the review and for the whole case be re-heard.
As per procedure review petitions are decided by circulation of files within judges' chambers and not in open court.
Mr Bhushan, 63, was last month found guilty of contempt of court - for tweets criticising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the top court. Earlier this week he announced his intention to appeal that verdict.
In last month's hearing the court had sought an unconditional apology, maintaining freedom of speech was not absolute. Mr Bhushan refused to apologise, arguing that he did not foresee any "substantial change" in his position and that his tweets were "discharge of highest duty".
Open criticism is necessary to "safeguard the democracy and its values," he had said, adding that he would cheerfully accept punishment.