The Supreme Court on Friday held advocate-activist Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court over his two tweets on the Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice of India. The hearing for the quantum of sentence will be held on August 20, stated a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari who were hearing the case.
“The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is sought to be shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded,” the court noted in the judgment.
“The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged Contemnor No1 (Prashant Bhushan) are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored,” the judgment added.
The Supreme Court also noted that such ‘attacks’ against the judiciary may “affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations” if not dealt with firmly.
“...when there appears some scheme and design to bring about results which have the tendency of damaging the confidence in our judicial system and demoralize the Judges of the highest court by making malicious attacks, those interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial and unbending justice will have to stand firmly. If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations,” the SC bench noted
The Supreme Court had initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings after an advocate filed a contempt petition against the advocate for two tweets he posted on Twitter on June 27 and June 29. One was a tweet questioning Chief Justice of India SA Bobde riding a Harley-Davidson bike in Nagpur. On July 22, the top court had issued a show cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him for his two tweets.
These are the tweets for which lawyer @pbhushan1 has been found guilty of contempt by the SC. Punishment could include upto 6 months in jail or a fine. Arguments on Aug 20. More details by @VakashaS here: https://t.co/dznSk5v3XU pic.twitter.com/fiLtYNXkTh
— Niha Masih (@NihaMasih) August 14, 2020
The top court on August 5 had reserved its verdict in the matter after Bhushan defended his two alleged contemptuous tweets saying they were against the judges regarding their conduct in their personal capacity and they did not obstruct administration of justice.
While reserving the order in the contempt case, the top court had dismissed a separate petition filed by Bhushan seeking recall of the July 22 order by which the notice was issued against him in a contempt proceeding initiated for his alleged contemptuous tweets against the judiciary.
The top court had not agreed to the contention of senior advocate Dushayant Dave, representing Bhushan, that the separate plea had raised objection against the manner in which the contempt proceedings were started without the opinion of Attorney General KK Venugopal and it be sent to another bench.
Bhushan had sought a direction to declare that the apex court's secretary general has allegedly "acted unconstitutionally and illegally" in accepting a "defective contempt petition" filed against him, which was initially placed on the administrative side and later on the judicial side.
Referring to a judgement, the apex court had said that it has meticulously followed the law in entertaining the contempt plea and it did not agree to the submission that it be sent to another bench for hearing.
Dave arguing for Bhushan in the contempt case had said that the two tweets were not against the institution.
"They are against the judges in their personal capacity regarding their conduct. They are not malicious and do not obstruct administration of justice.
Bhushan has made immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit, he had said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters.
Perhaps you would have given him Padma Vibhushan' for the work he did in the last 30 years, Dave had said, adding that this was not the case where contempt proceedings would have been initiated.
Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on suspension of fundamental rights during the emergency, the senior advocate said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out.
In a 142-page reply affidavit, Bhushan stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court.
Bhushan, in the affidavit, had referred to several apex court judgements, 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.
Bhushan stated that the expression of his opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or however unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court. This proposition has been laid down by several judgments of the Supreme Court and in foreign jurisdictions such as Britain, USA and Canada, he submitted.
Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a ''reasonable restriction'', the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism.
While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had said these statements are prima facie capable of "undermining the dignity and authority" of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large.
In November 2009, the apex court had issued a contempt notice to Bhushan for allegedly casting aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to a news magazine. This matter had not been heard since 2012, and came up for hearing on July 24.
With PTI inputs