Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro appeals his 27-year prison sentence
Rio de Janeiro (AP): Lawyers for Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro filed an appeal to reduce his prison sentence for attempting a coup after his 2022 electoral defeat.
Judges in September convicted Bolsonaro of trying to overthrow democracy and sentenced him to 27 years and three months in jail. He has been under house arrest since August.
In an 85-page document sent to the Supreme Court on Monday and shared with The Associated Press on Tuesday, lawyers said that the conviction and sentence entailed “profound injustices.”
Lawyers argued there were “ambiguities, omissions, contradictions and obscurities” in the court's decision.
Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing. He was convicted of attempting a coup after losing the 2022 race to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a plot that prosecutors alleged included plans to kill Lula.
He was found guilty on other charges including participating in an armed criminal organisation and attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law.
In their appeal, lawyers argued Bolsonaro should not be convicted of both organising a coup and attempting to violently abolish democracy, on the grounds that the two charges overlap and therefore cumulative penalties are unjust.
They also cited Justice Luiz Fux, who was the only dissenting vote on the five justice panel that convicted Bolsonaro, and argued that even if Bolsonaro had attempted a coup, he “deliberately interrupted the course of events” and did not go through with it.
Lawyers filed motions of clarification, which seek to correct a flaw in the reasoning of a decision rather than change it.
João Pedro Padua, a law professor at the Fluminense Federal University, said that this kind of appeal is very unlikely to reduce Bolsonaro's sentence.
To file an appeal that could substantially modify the decision, the Supreme Court usually requires at least two dissenting votes.
There is no limit on how many motions for clarification can be filed, but the Supreme Court may deem successive filings an attempt to delay the final judgment.
Such a strategy is “risky” for Bolsonaro's lawyers, as they “could give the Supreme Court an excuse to declare the judgment final right away,” Padua said.
Seven other close aides were convicted alongside Bolsonaro, and all of them apart from Mauro Cid, who signed a plea deal, have filed appeals, the Supreme Court said in a statement on Tuesday.
Justices will decide on the appeals between November 7 and November 14, the court added.
Bolsonaro will only start serving time once appeals are exhausted.
The trial made global headlines. US President Donald Trump ordered a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian imported goods and cited in part Bolsonaro's case, which he called a “witch hunt.”
That triggered a sharp deterioration in US-Brazil relations, which experts described as the lowest point in their more than 200-year history.
Relations have improved. Lula and Trump spoke on the phone then met last weekend in Malaysia at the ASEAN summit.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
