[Controversial Tweet] Bhushan Accuses Judge Of Political Dog-Whistling, Must Read SC EVM'S Order

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

He tweeted “An Injudicious judicial opinion. Must read piece on the SC’s EVM order. “First, the judge levels a range of allegations in the first two sentences, but provides no evidence or particulars. There is a term for such language, and it is called a dog-whistle.”

[ Controversial Tweet] Bhushan Accuses Judge of Political Dog-Whistling, Must Read SC EVM'S Order — [ Controversial Tweet] Bhushan Accuses Judge of Political Dog-Whistling, Must Read SC EVM’S Order

NEW DELHI: On 28th April: Prashant Bhushan, a prominent public figure, has been known for his outspoken nature, often criticizing the judiciary and individual judges. Recently, Bhushan tweeted accusing a judge of dog-whistling, implying that the judge’s observations were politically motivated. While some argue that Bhushan’s comments are not surprising given his history, examining the implications of his remarks in the context of judicial integrity and fair critique is crucial.

The controversy surrounding Bhushan’s statements and the larger debate surrounding his conduct towards the judiciary.

Bhushan’s tweet accused a judge of dog whistling, insinuating that the judge’s findings were politically biased and aimed at appeasing ideological followers.

He Tweeted

An Injudicious judicial opinion. Must read piece on the SC’s EVM order. “First, the judge levels a range of allegations in the first two sentences, but provides no evidence or particulars. There is a term for such language, and it is called a dog-whistle.”

Bhushan claimed that a judge’s findings were politically motivated, but it is important to understand the concept of judicial notice. Judicial notice refers to facts that are commonly known and accepted, without requiring formal evidence.

The judge’s observations could be seen as acknowledging a growing issue rather than being politically biased. It is crucial to differentiate genuine concerns from mere political bias to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

Critics argue that Bhushan’s remarks stem from his frustration with losing cases and his inability to accept defeat gracefully. They claim that he consistently resorts to criticism and attacks against the judiciary after unfavorable outcomes in his public interest litigations (PILs). While expressing dissatisfaction is a right, it is important to approach such matters with respect and constructiveness when dealing with the judicial system.

Although Bhushan’s remarks have raised concerns about potential contempt proceedings. It is worth noting that contempt proceedings should be approached with caution, as they involve restrictions on free speech. However, it is crucial to highlight that Bhushan’s conduct, as perceived by some, is contemptible in nature due to his repeated scurrilous attacks against the judiciary and individual judges.