PRASHANT BHUSHAN’S TWEET-A CALL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT?

The renowned public interest lawyer and the civil rights lawyer of the Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan has been held guilty of ‘Contempt of Court’ for two tweets made by him against the Judiciary.

The term ‘Contempt of Court’ means any offense of being disrespectful or committing a disgraceful act toward a court of law or the judicial authorities.

What were those 2 tweets?

       i.          The first tweet was made about a picture of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde seated on a bike name Harley Davidson. Prashant Bhushan alleged that CJI was enjoying and liking the expensive bike rides thereby keeping the Supreme Court under a COVID-19 lockdown and denying the citizens their fundamental rights to access justice.

     ii.          The second tweet was made about the 'distorted facts’ or we can say ‘destruction of democracy’. He tweeted on the role of courts in the past six years that had undermined the effect on the dignity and authority of the court. This outraged and scandalized the Supreme Court of India as an institution.

OVERVIEW OF THE CONTEMPT CASE-

The Supreme Court held Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer of good standing, guilty of Contempt of Court concerning the two tweets made by him. The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra and comprising Justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari stated that the two tweets have scandalized the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Sayings-

The court held that the tweets were based on distorted facts and affected Indian Democracy. In addition to this, the court observed that the tweets made resulted in shaking of the public confidence in the judiciary.

Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court hold the verdict of the court as suffering from great imbalances. The said council also represented Bhushan in another suo moto contempt case taken in 2009 where Bhushan made allegations during an interview with the Tehelka magazine that about half of the 16 CJIs were corrupt.

What was an 11-year-old suo moto contempt case?

In this case, Prashant Bhushan was held guilty for Contempt of Court in 2009 where he made allegations during an interview with the Tehelka magazine that about half of the 16 CJIs were corrupt.

The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari stated that the following questions having larger consequences arose in the case-

·       If any public statement is made concerning the corruption by a particular judge then under what conditions, it can be made and safeguarded?

·       When making such allegations about the conduct of a sitting judge, what procedure should be adopted?

·       Whether any allegation about corruption against the retired judges has been made publicly thereby shaking the public confidence is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?

The bench thereby referring to the case of 2009 and the judgment of Justice  JS Verma observed that corruption-related allegations should not be made publicly against any judge. Rather, it should be submitted before the court to facilitate its internal inquiry.

The comeback of the Defense Counsel-

Prashant Bhushan said in his defense that his tweets were made in light of freedom to speech and his criticism does not amount to contempt.

·       The defense counsel stated that the Supreme Court is one of the most powerful Constitutional Courts in the world and it is unfortunate that the court is intolerant of well-intentioned criticism. 

·       Further, the bench considered the tweets as harmful to the dignity of the court in the eyes of the public.

·       The bench observed that the judiciary commands respect and dignity and it cannot be demanded and asked for form the citizens of the country on the threat of the contempt.

Also, Bhushan filing the fresh application, and thereby referring to the case of Vijay Kurle stated that proceedings regarding the second tweet are required to be placed before CJI who is master for allocation of benches. Relying on case law, Bhushan also contended that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal.

The Lawyer’s Views-

On being disappointed with the verdict of the Supreme Court concerning Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case that puts an assault on the right to free speech, over 1300 advocates issued a statement thereby demanding that the conviction shall not be given an effect until the concerned issue is reviewed by the larger bench in an open court hearing.

The questions arise was whether lawyers have no right to speak about the shortcomings of the bar?

The statement issued pointed out that lawyers must bring up the shortcomings of the bar, bench, and the public and if the bar is silent due to the threat of contempt, it will, unfortunately, weaken the judiciary. Further, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken and will also undermine the independence of the court.

The senior advocates Janak Dwarakadas, Navroz H Seervai, Dairus J Khambata, Jayant Bhushan, Dushyan Dave, Arvind P Datar, Huzefa Ahamdi and others said that “A silenced bad cannot lead to a strong court”

The statement further pointed out that an independent judiciary does not mean that the judges are free from scrutiny and the tweets made by Bhushan were expressed routinely about the working of the court in the past 6 years. The disappointment was further expressed that the Attorney General was not heard of the matter despite the clear mandate of contempt law.

Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde said that “if two tweets can bring down Court’s Authority, then it is not as strong as we imagined.”

Another group of lawyers, activists, academics, etc. has issued a statement expressing solidarity with Prashant Bhushan thereby stating that it is an unconscionable decision. They further added that our Constitutional makers could not have intended that the Supreme Court which is a constitutional institution would ignore the critics that pass the test of legitimacy.

GURNEET KAUR

BBA LLB (H)

ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion of the author. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any Indian Government or any other Government of the world.