Prashant Bhushan: The lawyer-activist at the forefront of controversies

From fighting corruption cases, arguing for the deprived, representing big environmental law cases to taking up cases like the 2G spectrum scam and coal allocation, Prashant Bhushan has been associated with controversies for a very long time.

Starting with his first courtroom drama of Independent India, in the Allahabad court in 1975 where his father Shanti Bhushan fought Raj Narain’s legal challenge to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election,  the 19-year old Bhushan began his career as a lawyer by 1983.

Advertisement

He has played significant roles in representing the displaced people of Narmada Bachao Andolan, Bhopal Gas tragedy survivors and the Kudamkulam nuclear power plant protestors as a Public Interest Litigator.

As for his political philosophy, he was associated with the Anna Hazare led India Against Corruption movement which led to the formation of AAP, but eventually broke off from AAP when differences arose between him and the party leadership.

As an activist, he had also taken up cases such as the 2G spectrum and coal allocation scams which ultimately can be said as the main cause for the downfall of UPA government.

The latest case being that of court contempt wherein the Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Re.1 after his refusal to apologise, Prashant Bhushan has been actively fighting against corruption, dabbled in politics and has been outspoken in many controversial matters.

Despite these, Bhushan has also been criticised severely and been tagged as conspiracy-minded by many. His takes on 2G spectrum allocation and coal scam are said to be hyped and not backed by evidence in the court of law. He might also not be a popular figure among his colleagues.

But nothing seems to hinder his spirit as he says in his statement during the court contempt case, “I can only humbly paraphrase what the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”