"Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed," said the Supreme Court while handing down the sentence, referring to "sane advice" from Attorney General KK Venugopal to the court and to Prashant Bhushan. New Delhi: Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, held guilty of contempt for his tweets criticising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the Supreme Court, has been fined Re 1 by the top court. If he doesn't pay the fine by September 15, he can face jail for three months and a ban from practicing in the Supreme Court for three years. "Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed," said the Supreme Court while handing down the sentence, referring to "sane advice" from Attorney General KK Venugopal to the court and to Prashant Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan, photographed holding up a Re 1 coin, announced at a press conference: "I propose to submit to the order and respectfully pay the fine." He said he had always believed the Supreme Court is the "last bastion of hope for the weak and oppressed" and that he never intended to hurt the judiciary, but wanted to express his anguish on a "deviation from its record". The Supreme Court, which had asked for an unconditional apology from the lawyer, noted, "We gave several opportunities and encouragement to (Prashant Bhushan) to express regret. He not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press." The court was apparently referring to Prashant Bhushan's statement refusing to retract his comments or apologise, saying he considered it the discharge of his "highest duty" and apologising would be contempt of his conscience and the court. Mr Bhushan had also said that open criticism was necessary to "safeguard the democracy and its values." The statement "was to influence independent Judicial function," the Supreme Court said, adding that while freedom of expression was important, rights of others should also be respected. The court also referred to the unprecedented press conference by four Supreme Court judges on January 12, 2018, which Mr Bhushan had cited to argue that even judges had gone public with their criticism of the court.