Radical leftist Congress-AAP supporter Prashant Bhushan was booked recently for amplifying a fake Pakistani propaganda video of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Prashant Bhushan has spent years projecting himself as the conscience-keeper of Indian democracy, lecturing governments, questioning institutions and claiming the high ground on constitutional morality.
But when the spotlight turns on his own conduct, a very different picture emerges – anti-India, anti-Hindu, pro-Pakistan; a Dimagi Naxal basically. The man demands accountability from everyone else but never answers uncomfortable questions about his own record.
The issue is not whether a lawyer should criticise the government, question institutions or represent unpopular clients. But when the person routinely invokes constitutional morality and institutional accountability, he must be held to account when his own conduct point to disinformation, professional responsibility and the credibility of material placed before the public and the courts.
The latest controversy, involving a fabricated video of Russia’s Foreign Minister, makes this question particularly urgent.
Sharing a Fabricated Lavrov Video that Portrayed India as Being Dismissed by Russia
On 3 November 2026, Bhushan shared a digitally manipulated video falsely attributed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The video purported to show Lavrov making disparaging remarks about India, including questioning India’s standing in relation to Russia and suggesting that India had no right to advise Moscow on its foreign policy.
Bhushan presented the purported remarks as a rebuke to India, accompanying the clip with the words: “A tight slap by Russian Foreign Minister on India. What kind of advice was Jaishankar giving to India.”
Bhushan shared the video only to get fact-checked by the MEA. He later deleted the post.
Delhi Police has since registered an FIR. A senior advocate cannot casually amplify fabricated foreign propaganda targeting India and escape scrutiny.
The Ajit Doval Letter Controversy: A Complaint over a Forged Official Document
This is not the first time Bhushan has faced allegations involving fabricated material attributed to a senior Indian official.
On 21 April 2021, Bhushan shared on his verified Twitter account a purported letter from National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand.
The letter carried what was alleged to be a fake NSA letterhead and forged signature. It purportedly showed Doval congratulating the Uttarakhand administration for organising the Kumbh Mela and asking the Chief Secretary to promote RSS ideology.
Bhushan accompanied the document with the caption: “NSA Doval, complimenting the Chief Secy Utarakhand for organizing the Kumbh Mela & unashamedly asking him to promote the RSS ideology!!”
The complaint was filed alleging that Bhushan circulated a forged document bearing the identity and signature of National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. This was no ordinary political criticism but a purported official communication from one of India’s top security officials. The complaint alone does not establish that Bhushan forged it, but it raises a blunt question: why was such a document circulated without verifying its authenticity?
“There Will be a lot of Bloodshed”: Bhushan’s Call for Revolution
In October 2026, Bhushan made another set of remarks that attracted attention after an online discussion on X.
During a Space hosted by Nimo Yadav and a handle named Jitesh, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra asked Bhushan about a remark attributed to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru concerning the dangers of India being placed in the hands of constitutional lawyers.
Bhushan responded that there were no other options and that power could only be regained through a revolution.
He said: “The problem is that we don’t have any other options. The only option we have is that we do something through revolution. There will be a lot of bloodshed in that revolution now.”
🚨 Prashant Bhushan Openly Calls for Violence In India
In a Space Hosted By Nimo Yadav
When Kunal kamra asked Prashant Bhushan And Quoted Nehru if Constitution Of India is in Hands Of Lawyers Country will be destroyed
Bhushan : The Only way to Get Back Power is Revolution https://t.co/07uJ3R5cKd
— INDIAN (@hindus47) October 11, 2026
Kashmir: Plebiscite, Withdrawal of the Army and Statements about Terrorists
Bhushan’s positions on Jammu and Kashmir have repeatedly attracted criticism, particularly because they touch on India’s territorial integrity, counter-terror operations and the security situation in the region.
In 2011, at a press conference in Varanasi, he called for the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in Jammu and Kashmir, the withdrawal of the Indian Army and a UN-backed plebiscite to determine whether Kashmiris wanted to remain with India.
A plebiscite in Kashmir has historically been a central demand of Pakistan. Bhushan’s position therefore attracted sharp criticism, particularly in the context of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and the security challenges faced by India in the region.
In 2013, Bhushan, through the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court seeking a review of the alignment of the Katra-Banihal railway link, which includes the Chenab Railway Bridge. Challenging the alignment could delay an important infrastructure project connecting Kashmir with the rest of India.
In 2014, he again called for the withdrawal of Indian forces from Jammu and Kashmir and suggested that the local population should be consulted on the need for their continued presence.
His remarks following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Burhan Wani also drew criticism. Bhushan questioned whether Wani’s killing was a fake encounter and referred to the alleged beating of Wani’s brother by security forces as a factor in his radicalisation.
Following the February 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing, in which 40 CRPF personnel were martyred, Bhushan tweeted, “Pulwama bomber Adil Ahmad Dar became terrorist after he was beaten by troops. It’s imp to understand why so many young men in Kashmir are becoming militants & willing to die. Even US forces couldn’t hold Afghanistan & Iraq after large-scale suicide attacks.”
In 2019, Bhushan also opposed the abrogation of Article 370, arguing that the decision was unconstitutional and required the consent of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. He subsequently criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the constitutional changes.
Opposing Article 370’s abrogation is a political and constitutional position, not a criminal offence. Nor does advocating a plebiscite automatically establish support for Pakistan. But these positions form part of a sustained public record that deserves to be examined in the context of the security challenges India has faced in Jammu and Kashmir.
5. The Supreme Court’s criminal contempt conviction: A conviction, not merely a disagreement
One of the most significant episodes in Bhushan’s professional record is his 2020 criminal contempt conviction.
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings over two tweets by Bhushan.
One tweet alleged that the last four Chief Justices of India had played a role in destroying democracy. The other showed then Chief Justice of India S A Bobde on a motorcycle and criticised the judiciary in the context of the Chief Justice’s public image and the functioning of the institution.
On 14 August 2020, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of court.
The Court held that Bhushan’s tweets went beyond permissible criticism and could undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court.
Bhushan refused to withdraw his allegations or offer an unconditional apology, though he expressed regret over the factual error in the motorcycle tweet.
On 31 August 2020, the Court sentenced him to a nominal fine of Re 1. Failure to pay would mean three months’ imprisonment and a three-year ban on practising in the Supreme Court. Bhushan paid the fine.
This was a formal finding of criminal contempt by the Supreme Court, not merely a disagreement over an unpopular opinion.
The Bihar SIR affidavit: Supreme Court Judges Question Bhushan’s Verification
In October 2025, Bhushan faced sharp questions from the Supreme Court during proceedings concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
Representing the Association for Democratic Reforms, Bhushan placed before the Court an affidavit claiming that an individual’s name, which had appeared in the draft electoral roll, had been illegally deleted from the final list.
The Election Commission’s counsel, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, disputed the claim. He said the individual had never appeared in the draft list because the required enumeration form had not been submitted.
Dwivedi described the affidavit as false and argued that the organisation had a responsibility to verify the material before placing it before the Court.
Justice Surya Kant directly addressed Bhushan, saying, “The person should have disclosed correct information… we do not appreciate this.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the failure to verify the affidavit, observing that documents handed over to the Court required greater responsibility.
Bhushan defended himself, saying the affidavit had been supplied by a responsible person and suggesting that the Legal Services Authority could verify its authenticity. He also said he had affidavits from 20 other affected individuals.
Justice Bagchi, however, expressed scepticism about the remaining affidavits, saying, “After our experience with this affidavit, we don’t know how authentic the others will be.”
The Court ultimately declined to issue a blanket order on the basis of the disputed material. It instead directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to provide legal assistance to people who had been excluded from the electoral rolls and wanted to file appeals.
PILs & Bhushan
Bhushan has appeared in hundreds of public interest litigation matters and has been involved in several significant interventions, including the 2G spectrum and Radia Tapes controversies.
His work through organisations such as the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Common Cause has brought questions of corruption and public accountability before the courts.
However, his record has also included cases in which the Supreme Court questioned the quality of the evidence or the manner in which petitions were pursued.
In the Sahara-Birla matter, Bhushan sought an investigation into alleged payments to political leaders, including Narendra Modi, on the basis of entries in diaries and loose sheets.
The Supreme Court rejected the plea, holding that the material did not have sufficient evidentiary value to justify an investigation against constitutional functionaries.
The Court observed that the material, in the form in which it had been collected and filed, was not a safe basis for ordering an investigation.
In the Judge B H Loya matter, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the judge’s death. The judgment expressed concern over attempts to misrepresent and mislead the Court by manufacturing evidence to cast doubt on the circumstances of the death.
The Court also warned against the misuse of public interest litigation for personal, business or political agendas.
In the Rafale matter, Bhushan was among those who pursued a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The Court ultimately dismissed the review petitions, holding that they lacked merit.
The Hindu Temple Destruction in Pakistan and Bhushan’s Response
Bhushan’s public comments on the destruction of a Hindu temple in Pakistan also drew criticism.
In December 2020, a mob attacked and vandalised the Krishna Dwara Temple in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
On January 1, 2021, Bhushan posted, “Secular India? Where have we come?”
The tweet compared the destruction of the Hindu temple in Pakistan with an incident in Madhya Pradesh involving a mosque.
The two incidents were not comparable. In Madhya Pradesh, police intervened to protect the mosque and arrested those responsible. In Pakistan, a large mob attacked a Hindu temple, with police intervention reportedly delayed.
Bhushan’s tweet ignored these differences, drawing a false equivalence between the incidents despite the scale of destruction and the response of authorities.
The attack also came against the backdrop of repeated assaults on Hindu religious sites and the vulnerability of minorities in Pakistan.
Amplifying False Allegations Against Isha Foundation
In February 2025, YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh released a video making allegations against Sadhguru and the Isha Foundation, shortly before the organisation’s Mahashivratri celebrations.
The video repeated claims linked to a fabricated email circulated by Nakkheeran Gopal in October 2024. It was also amplified by several public figures, including Prashant Bhushan.
The article criticises Shyam Meera Singh’s claims and calls for legal action to be considered. However, it does not establish that Bhushan committed an offence by sharing the video.
The key question is whether Bhushan verified these allegations before amplifying them to his large audience.
His Interventions In Cases Involving Controversial Accused Persons
Bhushan has also appeared in cases involving individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes.
One example was the 2015 late-night hearing concerning Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case. Bhushan was among a group of lawyers who approached the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing on whether Memon should receive 14 days after the rejection of his mercy petition before execution.
The three-judge bench heard the matter in the early hours of 30 July 2015 and rejected the plea. Memon was executed later that morning.
Bhushan was also involved in the 2021 petition seeking to prevent the deportation of Rohingya migrants from Jammu. He appeared for petitioners challenging the proposed deportation, arguing for judicial protection and due process.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court declined to halt the deportation process and said the Rohingyas were foreigners who would be dealt with under the law, including the Foreigners Act.
The Bar Council Complaint and His Resignation from NGO Governing Bodies
In April 2019, a complaint was filed before the Bar Council of Delhi alleging that Bhushan had violated professional conduct rules by appearing in court for organisations whose governing bodies he was part of.
The complaint concerned his association with the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Common Cause and Swaraj Abhiyan.
The relevant Bar Council rule stated that an advocate should not appear for an organisation if he was a member of its governing body.
Bhushan acknowledged the issue and resigned from the governing bodies of the three organisations. He clarified publicly that he would continue to represent them in court and guide their work.
COVID-19 Misinformation and Vaccine Scepticism
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bhushan repeatedly questioned the efficacy and safety of vaccines and made claims that were criticised by public-health commentators.
In April 2021, Twitter removed one of his posts claiming that face masks were ineffective in preventing the transmission of infectious diseases.
In June 2021, Twitter attached a misleading label to another post in which he claimed that younger people had a higher chance of dying from vaccination than from COVID-19.
Bhushan also shared a report that claimed mortality rates were higher among vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant. The report relied on selective data and did not account for factors such as age and underlying health conditions. The underlying figures did not support the conclusion implied by its headline.
In December 2021, he again questioned the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, arguing that vaccines did not work because vaccinated people were still getting infected.
His Political Associations and the Wider Urban Naxal Activist Ecosystem
Bhushan’s political journey has included his association with the anti-corruption movement, the founding of the Aam Aadmi Party and his subsequent involvement in opposition politics.
He was a founding member of AAP before falling out with the party leadership. His later public interventions have frequently aligned with positions taken by Congress and other opposition parties.
In August 2025, he joined senior advocate Indira Jaising in publicly opposing the elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court. Their campaign ignored the judge’s broader judicial record and support from members of the Bar.
In October 2026, Bhushan also became part of the wider controversy surrounding the so-called independent commission announced by the Lawyers Association for Constitution to examine the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The Sambhaavnaa Institute, established in 2004 under the Kumud Bhushan Education Society by Prashant Bhushan, has hosted workshops involving activists, journalists and media figures, including YouTuber Akash Banerjee, listed as a resource person. The institute’s activities have also been linked to USAID-funded Internews and its Factshala media-literacy programme, though this does not establish direct USAID funding to Sambhaavnaa.
In August 2025, Bhushan joined a delegation to Assam that included former Planning Commission member Syeda Hameed to examine eviction drives and citizenship issues. During the visit, Hameed sparked controversy by saying that Bangladeshis were also human beings and could live in Assam, prompting criticism from political leaders and organisations in the state.
Prashant Bhushan Belongs Behind Bars
Prashant Bhushan has spent years preaching accountability to the country while repeatedly placing himself at the centre of controversies involving fabricated documents, false claims and misinformation. His latest act of amplifying a Pakistani propaganda video targeting India is not an isolated lapse but another instance of reckless conduct by a man who knows the power of his words. He cannot hide behind his stature as a senior advocate or his self-appointed role as democracy’s conscience. He deserves to rot in jail for everything he has done so far.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
