Law made Easy

[Disclaimer: This note is for general information only. It is NOT to be substituted for legal advice or taken as legal advice. The publishers of the blog shall not be liable for any act or omission based on this note] 

Introduction

The issue of Criminal Contempt keeps rolling on the discussion table before citizens. It was not long back when the question of contempt came in controversy after the Supreme Court initiated suo motu contempt proceeding against Senior Advocate, Prashant Bhushan. Recently, contempt proceedings against Stand-up Comedian, Kunal Kamra and Cartoonist, Rachita Taneja have once again brought the matter of contempt in limelight.

On 12 November 2020, Kamra had posted a series of tweets criticising the Supreme Court for granting interim bail to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in a suicide abetment case. Not only Kamra’s tweets received mixed responses from  netizens but also a few people found it problematic to the extent that they were persuaded to seek consent of the Attorney-General for India, K.K. Venugopal for intitiating contempt proceedings against Kunal Kamra. While granting consent, the AG wrote a letter to the complainant where he specifically pointed out certain statements from Kamra’s tweets [[1]] — “honour has left the building (Supreme Court) long back” and “Supreme Court of the country is the most Supreme joke of the country”. The AG noted that apart from these comments, Kamra had also posted a picture of the Supreme Court dressed in saffron colour with the flag of the ruling party, the BJP, which, the AG opined is a gross insinuation against the entirety of the Supreme Court of India that the Supreme Court is not an independent and impartial institution and so too its Judges but on the other hand is a Court of the ruling party, the BJP, existing for the BJP’s benefit. All this in the AG’s opinion constitutes criminal contempt of court.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Contempt

 Amongst all the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a), i.e., freedom of speech and expression is the most sensitive one and is prone to controversy. If exercised negligently, without abiding by the limitations prescribed under Article 19(2), a person, on one hand can be booked for defamation and on the other, hangs the probability of prosecution for “Criminal Contempt”.

Article 129 of the Constitution, makes the Supreme Court “a court of record” and confers power to punish for contempt of itself. Whereas, Article 142 empowers the Court to provide punishment for contempt, subject to any other law made in this behalf by the Parliament. Similar powers have been vested in the High Court by the virtue of Article 215 which makes the High Court “a court of record”, implying that only Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to adjudicate criminal contempt proceedings.

Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 specifically empowers the High Courts to punish contempt of subordinate courts. Similarly, Section 15(2) says even in the case of criminal contempt of subordinate court, proceedings for contempt are to be initiated by the High Court on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General* (or Law officer in cases of Union Territory). It is pertinent to mention here, High Court, for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would include the Court of Judicial Commissioner.[[2]]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Objective

In India, contempt proceedings are governed by Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contrary to the obvious conception, the objective of the Act as mentioned in the Act is:

“…to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.”

The rationale behind this enactment can be best described by pronouncement of Justice Wilmot in Rex v. Almon[3]: 

“And whenever men’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice and…calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any obstruction whatsoever, not for the sake of the Judges as private individuals but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people …”[[4]]

What is Criminal Contempt?

Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt in following manner:

” ‘Criminal Contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which─

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”

Scandalising the Authority of Court

Scandalising in substance is an attack on individual Judges or the Court as a whole with or without referring to particular cases casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or the ability of the Judges. “Scandalising the Court” is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either post or pending or any specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of justice, Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal(2010) 7 SCC 502

However, it is to be borne in mind that the authority of Court shall not be confused with judges as individuals. Where the contemptuous comment is made on the judge in his individual capacity and not as an officer of the Court, the same may amount to defamation but charge of contempt cannot be invoked against such actions.

Prejudicing due Course of Judicial Proceedings

It is incumbent upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party amounts to contempt. To make a speech intending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. The question is not so much of the intention of contemnor as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice, P.C. Sen, In re, (1969) 2 SCR 649

Though a fair criticism of judgment after the judgment is pronounced is permissible in law, however, making any statement or giving press interviews during the pendency of the litigation is not permissible. Therefore, no lawyer or litigant should either give an interview, talk to the press or make any statement with regard to pending litigation before any Court, Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 698

Obstructing Administration of Justice

There is no comprehensive definition of the expression “administration of justice”. But historically, and in the minds of the people, administration of justice is exclusively associated with the Courts of justice constitutionally established, Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, (1974) 1 SCC 374

The Court is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. Any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officers of the court, would amount to criminal contempt and the courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct, Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

Where is the Line?  

Kunal Kamra, in his defence, filed a 6-pages long affidavit and emphasised on not having any ill-intention to malign the judiciary, “the suggestion that my tweets could shake the foundations of the most powerful court in the world is an over-estimation of my abilities. … it (Supreme Court) should also trust the public not to form its opinions of the Court on the basis of few jokes on Twitter. The public’s faith in the judiciary is founded on the institution’s own actions, and not on any criticism or commentary about it.” While referring constitutional protection afforded to judiciary he further added, “I believe that constitutional offices-including judicial offices-know no protection from jokes.”

Section 13 of the Act postulates no punishment for contemptuous conduct in certain cases. As a general guideline, it provides for no punishment unless the court is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that “substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice”.[[5]] This section is an attempt by the framers of the Act to demonstrate a line between criticism and contempt:

13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,—

(a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice;

(b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.”

(emphasis supplied)

 

The offence of contempt is not absolute and act of contempt per se does not entail punishment (Exceptions—Sections 3 to 8).

“Exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct,” Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman(2001) 3 SCC 739

Defences Available

Innocent PublicationSection 3

      Section 3 shows that immunity attaches to certain statements or certain matter which may interfere or tend to interfere or obstruct or tend to obstruct the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceedings pending at the time of the publication. However, if the persons so publishing had at the time of its publication no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending, the publication is described by this section as “innocent”,   Prabhakar Laxman Mokashi v. Sadanand Trimbak Yardi, 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 79

Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceeding – Section 4

Subject to the provisions contained in Section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.

Section 7 refers to leakage of information whereas Section 4 refers to reporting of court proceedings. Leakage defeats very purpose of hearing in chambers or in camera, Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603

Fair Criticism – Section 5

Kunal Kamra wrote in his defence, “…constitutional offices − including judicial offices − know no protection from jokes. I do not believe that any high authority, including judges, would find themselves unable to discharge their duties only on account of being the subject of satire or comedy.” What he was willing to imply by this defence was public accountability of judges.

It is the privileged right of the Indian citizen to believe what he considers to be true and to speak out his mind, though not, perhaps, always with the best of tastes; and speak, perhaps, with greatest courage than care for exactitude. Judiciary is not exempt from such criticism. But there is no justification to resort to this freedom and privilege to criticise the proceedings during their pendency by persons who are parities and participants. Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 226

Complaint against Presiding Officer – Section 6

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to—

(a) any other subordinate court, or

(b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate.

In addition to above mentioned defences, an accused can also seek defence of truth, apology and ignorance can serve as mitigating factors in some cases.

Truth as a Defence – Section 13

Section 13 of the Act enables the Court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceedings if it satisfied that such a defence is in the public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide. Truth should ordinarily be allowed as a defence unless the Court finds, that it is only a camouflage to escape the consequences of the deliberate attempt of scandalising the Court. However, for considering the truth as valid defence there is a twin requirement:

  • defence is in public interest, and
  • request for invoking the defence is bona fide, Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 698

Apology – Section 12(1), proviso

Proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act says that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

The apology tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court,

on being impressed of his genuineness, accepts the apology then it could be said that the contemnor has purged himself of the guilt. Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali, (2001) 8 SCC 650

 Cognizance of Criminal Contempt  

Section 15 prescribes mode of cognizance in cases of contempt committed other than in the face of the Court:

“15.(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by—

(a) the Advocate-General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General,

* * *”

 Hence, if a private person intends to bring the proceedings of criminal contempt in motion, he must seek approval of the Advocate-General* to do so. However, in an event of denial by the AG to grant consent, the law does not leave one handicapped. In such an event, resort could be to approach the Court itself and urge for suo motu action.

This legal position was reaffirmed by Justice Arun Mishra in Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 1 SCC 745:

“… as far as the suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody, including the learned Attorney General because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue a notice for contempt. It is equally well settled, that once the Court takes cognizance, the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor. The only requirement is that the procedure followed is required to be just and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. …”

 Notice to Contemnor – Section 17

 Every contemnor is entitled to be served with a personal notice unless the Court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. The notice shall be accompanied with copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits in cases where proceedings commenced on a motion or in case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference.

Hearing to be by Benches – Section 18

Every case of criminal contempt shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two judges. This, however, does not apply to the Court of Judicial Commissioner.

Limitation – Section 20

 No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

Power to be Exercised with Caution

 Exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly by the Court after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed, would even permeate in our society, Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman(2001) 3 SCC 739

In an endeavour to prevent frequent and prejudiced use of power in disgust or anguish, Justice Krishna Iyer, in S. Mulgaokar, In re (1978) 3 SCC 339, laid down certain checks to be born in mind by the Court while exercising the power to punish its contempt. Considering, to be gentle is to be just and the quality of mercy is not strained, emphasis was on to draw up the objective line of action. These are:

  • Wise economy of the use of the contempt power by the Court.
  • The constitutional values of free criticism and judiciary must be harmonised and a happy balance must be struck between the two.
  • Difference between personal protection of a libelled Judge and obstruction of public justice must be clearly kept in mind.
  • Press should be given free play within responsible limits when its focus of critical attention is on the Court.
  • Judges should not be hypersensitive when distortions and criticisms overstep the limits but deflate such vulgar denunciations by dignified bearing.
  • Lastly, when the attack on Judge(s) is scurrilous or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow in the name of public interest and public justice.

† Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/attorney-general-clears-contempt-proceedings-against-kunal-kamra-7049509/

* Ed.: For the purposes of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the expression Advocate-General means:

“(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” [Explanation to Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971]

[2] Section 2(d), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[3] (1965) Wilm 243

[4] Law Commission of India, 274th  Report, Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, April 2018

[5]  Law Commission of India, 274th  Report, Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, April 2018

* Ed.: For the purposes of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the expression Advocate-General means:

“(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” [Explanation to Section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years. It had found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets.

In the 82-pages long verdict on sentence, the Court said that it not on one occasion but on several occasions, not only gave opportunity but also directly or indirectly pursuaded the contemnor to express regret. Further, the Attorney General had also suggested that it was in the fitness of things that a contemnor expresses regret and withdraws the allegation made in the affidavit in reply, however, the request was not heeded to by the contemnor and he gave wide publicity to the second statement submitted before the Court on 24.08.2020 prior to the same being tendered to the Court. He also gave various interviews with regard to sub judice matter, thereby further attempting to bring down the reputation of the Court.

“If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of  Re.1/­ (Rupee one).”

KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE VERDICT

On Judges being the silent sufferers of allegations against them

The Judges have to express their opinion by their judgments, and they cannot enter into public debate or go to press. It is very easy to make any allegation against the Judges in the newspaper and media. Judges have to be the silent sufferer of such allegations, and they cannot counter such allegations publicly by going on public platforms, newspapers or media

“Thus, it is necessary that when they cannot speak out, they cannot be made to suffer the loss of their reputation and prestige, which is essential part of the right to live with dignity.”  

On the Press Conference dated 12.01.2018 of the then four senior-­most Judges of the Supreme Court

Concept of equality before law, what is permissible not as to what is impermissible. Truth can be the defence to the Judges also, but they are bound by their judicial norms, ethics, and code of conduct.

“We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges.”

On Prashant Bhushan being actively involved pursuing various Public Interest Litigations

“Merely because a lawyer is involved in the filing of the public interest litigation for the public good it does not arm him to harm the very system of which he is a part.”

An advocate cannot forget his ethical duty and responsibility and cannot denigrate the very system of which he/she is an integral part. Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the Court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer

On the Statements made by retired Judges, journalists, and others in Press/Media

The Court cannot abdicate its duty and has to be uninfluenced by the statements published in various articles published in the media and opinions expressed therein. It has to decide the case uninfluenced by such opinions.

On the argument that the Court will be criticized, in case it inflicts any punishment upon Prashant Bhushan

“While exercising our judicial functions, we cannot take into consideration whether we will be praised or criticized for the judgment which we render.  We are required to decide the cases on the basis of the law as it correctly stands, in our perception and understanding.  We are not expected to decide the matter on the basis as to whether there will be criticism of the judgment or not. We have to be always ready for its fair criticism.”

On the lawyers and litigants going to press or media in a sub judice matter

Prashant Bhushan talked to the press and media and the statement which was pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2020, was also published well in advance in extenso, word to word, in the newspaper and media. If such kind of action is resorted to in a sub judice matter, that too by an advocate who is facing a criminal contempt, it virtually tantamount to using a forum or platform which is not supposed to be used ethically and legally.

“In a sub judice matter, releasing such statement to the press in advance is an act of impropriety and has the effect of interfering with the judicial process and the fair decision making and is clearly an attempt to coerce the decision of the Court by the influence of newspaper and media, which cannot be said to be conducive for the fair administration of justice and would further tantamount to undue interference in the independent judicial making process which is the very foundation of institution of administration of justice.”

On sentencing

  • The contention that he is a lawyer having of 35 years of standing and has also pursued various public interest litigations would no doubt  be a relevant factor while balancing the decision to be taken by the Court.  However, at the same time, the uncalled statements made in the affidavit for pursuing truth as a defence can also not be ignored.
  • Lawyers’ noble profession will lose all its significance and charm and dignity if the lawyers are permitted to make any malicious, scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the institution of which they are part. The lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the institution.
  • It is apparent that in both the statements made by the contemnor, he is sticking to his ground, and he is not at all realizing that any wrong was done by him to the institution. At the same time, he has expressed the faith in the institution and he has submitted that an apology cannot be a mere incantation and an apology has to be as the Court itself put be sincerely made.  He has further stated that he made the statement bona fide and with truthful details which had not been dealt with by the Court.  He is insistent and has no remorse about what he has stated in the defence.
  • Bhushan not gone by the advice of the learned Attorney General to withdraw the same and to take if off the record. Being a person well versed with law, he ought to have given due weightage to the advice rendered by the learned Attorney General who has pleaded not to sentence him, at the same time maintained that the statements made in the affidavit in reply could not be taken into consideration for considering the case of Mr. Prashant Bhushan of truth as a defence.

“When senior most functionary in the legal profession of the stature of the learned Attorney General was giving an advice to express regret and withdraw the wild allegations a lawyer of such a long standing was expected to give due respect to it.  Even our request made to him has gone in vain.”

  • Simple issuance of warning is not going to suffice in the instant case.

“We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs.  At the same time, we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence.”

Sentence 

A fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

[In re: Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 698, decided on 31.08.2020]


Read more on the judgment here

Read Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s supplementary reply here

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari has reserved its verdict on sentence after it found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets.

Asking advocate Prashant Bhushan to tender an apology for his remarks, the Court said that there is “no harm in apologising if a mistake has been made”.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, argued

“This institution must have criticism and not just criticism but extreme criticism.” 

He further said that his client, Bhushan, had in his submissions stated that he has the highest regard for the institution but he has his opinion about last four Chief Justices of India (CJIs) about the way in which this court has gone wrong.

“We criticise this court when we feel sincere about this institution. We know our responsibility and our respect for the institution. Don’t make him a martyr,” 

To this, Justice Mishra said,

“If we are going to destroy each other, who will have faith in this institution? You have to be tolerant, see what the court is doing and why. Don’t just attack. Judges can’t go to press to defend themselves or explain. Whatever we have to say, we have to write in our judgments,” 

Expressing his displeasure over the way the tweets were written, Justice Arun Mishra, said, that judges are condemned, their families are humiliated and they can’t even speak.

“You are a leader of the bar. We expect you to be impartial. You may have love and affection for anyone but we want you to be fair. Don’t take sides,”

Yesterday Bhushan, in a supplementary reply in the suo motu contempt proceedings, submitted that if he retracts his statement before the court that he otherwise believes to be true would amount to the contempt of his conscience in his eyes.

“If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem,”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

(With inputs from ANI)


Read more on the judgment here

Read Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s supplementary reply here

Fact ChecksNews

Screenshots of a tweet by a journalist has been doing the rounds on social media that the Supreme Court Bar Association headed by president Dushyant Dave has passed a resolution not to give farewell to Arun Mishra, J. when he retires on September 2. Along with the screenshot of the tweet, a pdf titled ‘Proposed Resolution of SCBA’ is also circulating. The pdf states that the executive committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association has resolved not to hold any farewell for Justice Mishra upon his retirement. Two points have been mentioned in the pdf which state that he was extremely unpleasant to the members of the Bar and have misbehaved with him on several occasions and that all important matters of the government where assigned to him, and  therefore other judges were relegated to an inferior position. The note ends with the statement that Justice Mishra had caused immense damage to the Supreme Court as an institution and that the Bar registers its protest by not giving any farewell to Justice Mishra. The points can be read in detail in the pdf image given below. 

Now let us test the veracity of the claims in the pdf. We checked the official website of the Supreme Court Bar Association and found that there is a notification published there which states that circulating pdf with respect to the statement tissued by the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association on the issue of Farewell to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra on his retirement next month is false. The  notification further states that no such statement had been issued by the Executive Committee and that in fact this matter had not been considered by the EC in any meeting. The Press release being attributed to the EC was not genuine and is strongly denied by Mr Dave on behalf of the EC. Mr Dave strongly condemned the same as being mischievous and an attempt to malign the SCBA. 

The notification uploaded on the SCBA website can be seen below:

Therefore, we can safely say that the circulating message is false and no resolution has been passed by the SCBA to not give a farewell to Justice Mishra.

Hot Off The PressNews

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has been held guilty of contempt of court for his contemptuous tweets has refused to retract his statements or tender an apology in the matter. Last week, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, jj has asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to take 2-3 days to reconsider his ‘defiant statement’.

Bhushan, in a supplementary reply in the suo motu contempt proceedings, submitted that if he retracts his statement before the court that he otherwise believes to be true would amount to the contempt of his conscience in his eyes.

“If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem,”

He said that he has nothing but the highest regard for the institution of the Supreme Court.

“I believe that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of hope for the protection of fundamental rights, the watchdog institutions and indeed for constitutional democracy itself. It has rightly been called the most powerful court in the democratic world, and often an exemplar for courts across the globe. … Today in these troubling times, the hopes of the people of India vest in this Court to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution and not an untrammeled rule of the executive,”

Bhushan said that this casts a duty, especially for an officer of this court like himself, to speak up, when he believes there is a deviation from its sterling record.

“Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples’ rights,”

He further said that his tweets represented this bonafide belief that he continues to hold and added that the public expression of these beliefs was in line with his higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of the court.

“… an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere. An apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made. … This is especially so when I have made the statements bonafide and pleaded truths with full details, which have not been dealt with by the Court,”

Reserving the order on sentence on August 20, 2020, the Court had said,

“In case, apology is submitted, the case to be posted for consideration on the same, on 25.08.2020.”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

(With inputs from ANI)

Read more on the judgment here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, jj has asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to take 2-3 days to reconsider his ‘defiant statement’, refusing to apologise for his contemptuous tweets. Bhushan said that he will consult his lawyers and think over the Court’s suggestion in 2-3 days.

“We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires.”

When the Attorney General KK Venugopal urged the Court not to award any punishment to Prashant Bhushan in the contempt case, the Court said that it cannot consider the said request Bhushan reconsiders his earlier stand of not apologising for his tweets.

“The tone, tenor and content of Prashant Bhushan’s statement makes it worse; is it defence or aggravation.”

The bench said that it can be very lenient if there is realization of mistake.

At the outset of the hearing, Bhushan had submitted before the Court that the arguments on quantum of sentence in the contempt proceedings, in which he has been held guilty, be heard by another bench. The bench rejected the submission but gave assurance to Bhushan that no punishment will be acted upon till his review against the order convicting him in the case will be decided.

Reserving the order, the Court said,

“In case, apology is submitted, the case to be posted for consideration on the same, on 25.08.2020.”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice

[In re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 663, order dated 20.08.2020]

(With inputs from PTI)

Read more on the judgment here

Hot Off The PressNews

“Trenchant criticisim, commentary, satire and homour help build institutions in a free society.”

After a group of lawyers, released a Statement appealing the Supreme Court to not give effect to the judgment dated 14.08.2020 that found advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets, the Bar Association of India has also expressed dismay on the manner in which Suo Moto contempt jurisdiction was exercised by the Supreme Court against a member of legal profession.

“Judgments that curb the exercise of freedom of speech and expression by a member of the Bar by resort to suo motu powers is conspicuously old fashioned. The reputation of the Supreme Court of India cannot be dislodged by a couple of tweets.”

Stating that the stature of the Supreme Court would stand enhanced by allowing criticism rather than taking umbrage at such remarks, BAI writes that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction in this manner has potential for more self harm than the avowed purpose of safeguarding the prestige of the institution.

Yesterday, a battery of lawyers, appealed to the Supreme Court that,

“… the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt.”

The Statement went on to state that the judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary.

“A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court.”

The Bar Association of India is Federation of the Supreme Court, High Court, District Court and other local Bar Associations, Law Societies in India and the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), cumulatively representing as a voluntary body almost the entire legal profession, apart from having a distinguished individual membership.

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdict, said that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”


Read more on the judgment here

Read the Public Statement by Advocates on Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After it refused to accept the explanation of advocate Prashant Bhushan in the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ has framed larger questions in the matter that will have far-reaching ramifications.

On August 10, 2020, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 635, the Court had noticed that that further hearing was required in the matter.

“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se amount to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard. “

Issues framed

  • In case a public statement as to corruption by a particular Judge(s) is permissible, under what circumstances and on what basis, it can be made, and safeguards, if any, to be observed in that regard ?
  • What procedure is to be adopted to make complaint in such cases when the allegation is about the conduct of a sitting Judge ?
  • Whether against retired Judge(s), any allegation as to corruption can be made publicly, thereby shaking the confidence of general public in the judiciary; and whether the same would be punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?

The Court will now hear the matter on August 25, 2020.

[Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 651, order dated 17.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

“An independent judiciary consisting of independent judges and lawyers, is the basis of the rule of law in a Constitutional democracy. Mutual respect and the absence of coercion, are the hallmarks of a harmonious relationship between the bar and bench. Any tilting of the balance, one way or the other, is deleterious both to the institution and the nation.”

A battery of lawyers, including Senior Advocates have released a Statement appealing the Supreme Court to not give effect to the judgment dated 14.08.2020 that found advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets. 

“… the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt.”

The Statement reads that an independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment. It is the duty of lawyers to freely bring any shortcomings to the notice of bar, bench and the public at large.

“While some of us may have divergent views on the advisability and content of Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s two tweets, we are unanimously of the view that no contempt of court was intended or committed especially when contrasted with the normal standard that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue… She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men”.”

While Mr. Prashant Bhushan as a lawyer of good standing of the Supreme Court, may not be an ordinary man, his tweets do not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what is routinely expressed about the court’s working in recent years by many on public fora and on social media. Even some retired judges of the Supreme Court have expressed somewhat similar views.

The Statement goes on तो state that the judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary.

“A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court.”

The lawyers also express a deep sense of disappointment about the Supreme Court’s disregard of the presence of the Attorney General KK Venugopal during the hearing and its refusal to seek his valuable opinion in the matter, which is mandated even as per contempt law.

The Statement concludes by saying that:

“We do believe that the Supreme Court will hear the Voice of the People expressed all around in last 72 hours on the subject and take corrective steps to prevent miscarriage of Justice and restore the confidence and respect that Citizens have generally reposed in it.”

Here’s the list of the Lawyers who have signed the Statement:

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdict, said that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”


Read more on the judgment here

Read the Public Statement on Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has, in a 108-pages long verdict, held advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets. It held,

The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, in our considered view, amount to committing of ‘criminal contempt’.

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice. He is expected to act as a responsible officer of this Court.

Stressing upon the importance of Judiciary and the need to protect the institution of the Supreme Court from malicious attacks, the Court said that judiciary is considered as a last hope when a citizen fails to get justice anywhere. The Supreme Court is the epitome of the Indian judiciary. An attack on the Supreme Court does not only have the effect of tending an ordinary litigant of losing the confidence in the Supreme Court but also may tend to lose the confidence in the mind of other judges in the country in its highest court. A possibility of the other judges getting an impression that they may not stand protected from malicious attacks, when the Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be ruled out.

“No doubt, that the Court is required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the judges or of the institution of administration of justice. However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation of the institution of the judiciary and thereby damaging the very foundation of the democracy.”

What prompted the Court to initiate the contempt proceedings

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

On Tweet 1

Advocate Bhushan told the Court that the said tweet is divided the tweet into 3 parts:

  • First part: democracy has been substantially destroyed in India during the last six years.
  • Second part: the Supreme Court has played a substantial role in allowing the destruction of the democracy
  • Third part: the role of the last 4 Chief Justice’s in particular in allowing it.

While the Court did not go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the first part of the tweet, inasmuch as it did not want to convert the proceeding into a platform for political debate, it said that the said the remaining parts of the tweet undermine the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.

Stating that an attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand, the Court said that the tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy.

“The tweet clearly tends to give an impression, that the Supreme Court, which is a highest constitutional court in the country, has in the last six years played a vital role in destruction of the Indian democracy. There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary.”

It further noticed that there cannot be any manner of doubt, that the said tweet is directed against the Supreme Court, tending to give an impression, that the Supreme Court has a particular role in the destruction of democracy in the last six years and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in the same. It is clear, that the criticism is against the entire Supreme Court and the last four CJIs.

“The criticism is not against a particular judge but the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justice of India. The impression that the said tweet tends to convey is that the judges who have presided in the Supreme Court in the period of last six years have particular role in the destruction of Indian democracy and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in it.”

Even on Bhushan’s own admission, he has expressed his opinion, that the Supreme Court has played a substantial role in allowing the destruction of democracy and further admitted, that the third part is regarding the role of last four Chief Justices in particular, in allowing it.

ों Tweet 2

This tweet was also considered in two parts:

  • First part: “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet…”
  • Second part: “…at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice.”

While the Court noticed that the first part of the tweet could be said to be a criticism made against the CJI as an individual and not against the CJI as CJI. However, the second part of the tweet attempts to give and impression to a layman that the CJI is riding a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet, at a time when he has kept the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice.

On this the Court said that the date on which the CJI is alleged to have taken a ride on a motorbike is during the period when the Supreme Court was on a summer vacation. In any case, even during the said period, the vacation Benches of the Court were regularly functioning.

The statement, that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is factually incorrect even to the knowledge of the contemnor. It is a common knowledge, that on account of COVID-19 pandemic the physical functioning of the Court was required to be suspended. This was in order to avoid mass gathering in the Supreme Court and to prevent outbreak of pandemic. However, immediately after suspension of physical hearing, the Court started functioning through video conferencing.

“From 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020, various benches of the Court have been sitting regularly and discharging their duties through video conferencing. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020 is 879. During this period, the Court has heard 12748 matters. In the said period, this Court has dealt with 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court refused to accept the contention that the said statement was a bona fide criticism made by him on account of his anguish of non-functioning of the courts physically. His contention, that on account of non-physical functioning of the Supreme Court for the last more than three months, the fundamental rights of citizens, such as those in detention, those destitute and poor, and others facing serious and urgent grievances were not being addressed or taken up for redressal, as stated herein above, is false to his own knowledge.

“He has made such a scandalous and malicious statement having himself availed the right of an access to justice during the said period, not only as a lawyer but also as a litigant.”

[In Re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 646, decided on 14.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the bench headed by Arun Mishra, J refused to accept the explanation of advocate Bhushan and said that further hearing is required in the matter.

“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se amount to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard. “

The will now hear the matter on August 17, 2020.

Earlier, on August 4, the Court had said that there is a thin line between freedom of speech and the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary as an institution and it sought to balance both. The hearing in the 11-year-old case which pertains to an interview given by Bhushan to Tehelka where he said that half of past 16 Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.

On July 22, 2020, in another matter, a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ had issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

In his reply to the suo motu petition, Bhushan said that

“The expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court…”

According to PTI, in a 142-page reply affidavit filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, the activist lawyer has referred to several Supreme Court judgments, speeches of former and
serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. He has also stood by his two tweets.’

“To prevent a citizen from forming, holding, and expressing a bonafide opinion’ in public interest on any institution that is a creature of the Constitution is not a reasonable restriction and violates the basic principles on which our democracy is founded.”

The affidavit said the power of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should be utilized to aid in administration of justice and not to shut out voices that seek accountability from the court for the errors of omissions and commissions.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for advocate Prashant Bhushan, in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Bhushan, asked the Court,

“This is criticism… Why don’t you take it objectively?”

He also submitted that if a judge is defamed, he should seek relief in the ordinary laws of defamation.

He further submitted that a sitting judge, who went on to become a CJI, had ‘criticised’ the functioning of the Supreme Court in a presser in January 2018. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, one of the four judges who had met the media, went on to become the 46th Chief Justice and Justice Bobde’s immediate predecessor. Dave, in his submission said,

“The holding of January 2018 press conference was fully justified. If the then CJI was not listening to their points, what could they do? If citizens stand up and criticise the system, say everything is not hunky-dory, how can it be contempt?”

The Court has reserved the judgment in the said matter. Read more

[Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 635, order dated 10.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: “This is criticism… Why don’t you take it objectively?” asked senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for advocate Prashant Bhushan, in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Bhushan.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

Stating that the right to dissent and free speech cannot be controlled by contempt proceedings, Dave told a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ that

“Contempt is to be used sparingly and only for administration of justice. If a judge is defamed, he should seek relief in the ordinary laws of defamation,”

He further submitted that a sitting judge, who went on to become a CJI, had ‘criticised’ the functioning of the Supreme Court in a presser in January 2018. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, one of the four judges who had met the media, went on to become the 46th Chief Justice and Justice Bobde’s immediate predecessor. Dave, in his submission said,

“The holding of January 2018 press conference was fully justified. If the then CJI was not listening to their points, what could they do? If citizens stand up and criticise the system, say everything is not hunky-dory, how can it be contempt?”

The Court has reserved the judgment.

In January, 2018, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice J. Chelameswar, along with Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Jospeh, held a press conference at his residence to put an end to the speculations making rounds over the differences between the judges and the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, over the assignment of cases.

A letter addressed to the then CJI Justice Dipak Misra by the aforementioned judges stated:

“There have been instances where case having far-reaching consequences for the Nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justices of this Court selectively to the benches “of their preference” without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs. We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.” 

[In Re Prashant Bhushan, SMC (Crl.) No. 1/2020, order dated 05.08.2020]

(With inputs from The Hindu)


ALSO READ

Preserve judiciary or democracy will fail: 4 SC judges led by Justice Chelameswar in their address to the nation

Read what the 4 senior most judges of the country wrote in their letter to the CJI in January 2018


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the bench headed by Arun Mishra, J said that there is a thin line between freedom of speech and the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary as an institution and it sought to balance both. The hearing in the 11-year-old case which pertains to an interview given by Bhushan to Tehelka where he said that half of past 16 Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt, was conducted in-camera.

On July 22, 2020, a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ had issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter. The Court will hear that matter tomorrow. The Court, in it’s order, recorded:

“We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.”

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

In his reply to the suo motu petition, Bhushan said that

“The expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court…”

According to PTI, in a 142-page reply affidavit filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, the activist lawyer has referred to several Supreme Court judgments, speeches of former and
serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. He has also stood by his two tweets.’

“To prevent a citizen from forming, holding, and expressing a bonafide opinion’ in public interest on any institution that is a creature of the Constitution is not a reasonable restriction and violates the basic principles on which our democracy is founded.”

The affidavit said the power of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should be utilized to aid in administration of justice and not to shut out voices that seek accountability from the court for the errors of omissions and commissions.


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter. The Court has asked Bhushan to file a detailed response by next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2020.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The Court, in it’s order, recorded:

“We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.”

The Court also issued notice to the Attorney General for India.

Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of the Twitter, submitted that the Twitter Inc., California , USA is the correct description on which the tweets were made by Prashant Bhushan. The Court, hence, also issued a notice to Twitter.

Earlier this year, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, had granted protection to Bhushan from any coercive action in an FIR lodged against him at Rajkot in Gujarat for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of the Hindus through one of his tweets. He had tweeted:

Last year, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Union of India filed a contempt petition against Bhushan after he made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao. Here’s what he had tweeted:

[In re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 588 , order dated 22.07.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ will today be hearing the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter India. The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan, the details of the same are, however, not known yet.

According to Indian Express, the Court will also take up on July 24 another contempt matter against Bhushan and former Editor-In-Chief of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal. The 2009 matter pertains to statements by Bhushan against former Chief Justices and the then Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia in an interview to Tehelka.

Bhushan who isn’t afraid to mince his words and quite actively and openly shares his view point of Twitter on all the happenings in the Country, often finds himself surrounded with controversies.

Earlier this year, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, had granted protection to Bhushan from any coercive action in an FIR lodged against him at Rajkot in Gujarat for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of the Hindus through one of his tweets. He had tweeted:

Last year, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Union of India filed a contempt petition against Bhushan after he made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao. Here’s what he had tweeted:

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, on Friday, granted protection to activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan from any coercive action in an FIR lodged against him at Rajkot in Gujarat for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of the Hindus. In the proceedings conducted through video conferencing, the Court issued notice to the Gujarat Police and listed Bhushan’s plea after two weeks.

“In the meantime, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in First Information Report No. 11209052200180 lodged on 12th April 2020 under Sections 295A/505(1)(b), 34 and 120B of the IPC registered at the Police Station Bhaktinagar, Rajkot, Gujarat.

The FIR was lodged by former Army personnel Jaidev Rajnikant Joshi at Rajkot alleging that Bhushan hurt religious sentiments of Hindus by tweeting against re-telecast of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata serials on DD during the coronavirus lockdown in the country.

While granting interim relief and protection to Bhushan, the apex court said,

“anybody can watch anything on TV” and questioned as to how one can ask people not to watch a particular programme.”

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan, sought quashing of the FIR lodged against the activist lawyer and sought interim protection against any coercive measure for the time being. He said he was not on the issue of as to what people should watch on TV, but was arguing against registration of the FIR.

In his complaint, Joshi had accused Bhushan of using word ‘opium’ for Ramayana and Mahabharata in a tweet on March 28 which hurt the sentiments of many Hindu people.

Bhushan had tweeted

“As crores starve & walk hundreds of miles home due to forced lockdown, our heartless ministers celebrate consuming & feeding the opium of Ramayana & Mahabharata to the people.”

Bhushan had filed the plea on Thursday and it was listed a day after the bench.

[Prashant Bhushan v. Jaidev Rajnikant Joshi, Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 131/2020, order dated 01.05.2020]

(With inputs from PTI)

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Bench of Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, JJ has given 3 weeks to advocate Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

The bench said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion.

The Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Central Government filed a contempt petition after advocate Prashant Bhushan made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao.

The matter is posted for further hearing on March 7, 2019.

(Source: PTI)

Hot Off The PressNews

After advocate Prashant Bhushan made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and consecutively, the Union of India have filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.

Prashant Bhushan had, on February 1, 2019, had tweeted:

“Today in CBI Dir appt case, the govt made a startling new claim that M Nageswara Rao was selected as the interim director in the HPC meeting on 11th January when they decided to transfer out Alok Verma! This seems to be at variance from LOP Kharge’s version.”

He further claimed that the Govt had misled the Supreme Court by submitting fabricated minutes of High Powered Committee (HPC) meeting saying that HPC approved the appointment Seems govt gave fabricated minutes to court. He said that this was a Contempt of Court. He even claimed that he had personally confirmed this from the Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken.

Attorney General, in his petition said that Prashant Bhushan’s tweets scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court. The plea said that the signatures of all the three members of the committee i.e. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Suprme Court judge Justice A K Sikri and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, were affixed in the decision taken by the panel. It was also mentioned that:

“A mere reading of the said minutes would establish that the high powered committee, at the said meeting, had taken a decision to permit the Central government to post a suitable officer to look after the duties of the Director CBI till the appointment of a new Director.”

The Union of India, in it’s plea, has stated that Prashant Bhushan is:

“deliberately and willfully making false statements of a public platform with regard to a matter which is sub judice.”

The controversy relating to appointment of M Nageswara Rao as the interim CBI Director has become a high profile one as already 3 judges, including the CJI, have recused themselves from hearing the matter.