Prashant Bhusan Case- The hoax Contempt n v pranjape

The Supreme Court on Friday held Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court in the suo
moto contempt case taken against him over two of his tweets about the Chief Justice of India and the
Supreme Court.

Justice B R Gavai, reading out the judgment, observed that Bhushan committed "serious contempt of
the Court".

The bench will hear him on sentence on August 20.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari had reserved judgment in the
case on August 5 after elaborately hearing Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave for Bhushan.

Dave submitted that Bhushan was airing only bona fide criticism against the judiciary without any
malice. Dave also submitted that there were several shortcomings in the functioning of the judiciary,
which warranted Bhushan's criticism.

'Why Only Certain Judges Get Politically Sensitive Matters?' : Dave Raises Points Of Criticism Against SC
In Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case

Bhushan filed a detailed reply affidavit to the contempt notice, stating that expression of bona fide
opinion about the Court cannot amount to contempt.

As regards his tweet about Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, seated on a Harley Davidson motorcycle,
Bhushan said in the affidavit that his comment was to underline his angusih at the non-physical
functioning of the Supreme Court for the last more than three months, "as a result of which
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 regards the tweet about the role of SC in the destruction of democracy and the role of last 4 CJIs in
that, Bhushan says that it was his "bonafide impression" about them and it is his considered opinion that
SC allowed the destruction of democracy and such expression of opinion however "outspoken,
disagreeable or unpalatable" can't constitute contempt.

It was on July 22 that the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra issued contempt notice to Bhushan in a
suo moto case taken with respect to two of his tweets on judiciary and the Chief Justice of India.

The bench, also including Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, prima facie, observed that his tweets
"have brought disrepute to the administration of justice and are capable of undermining the dignity and
authority of the Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the
eyes of general public".

(Story to be updated after getting full copy of the judgment)

Click Here To Download Judgment

[12:19 PM, 8/16/2020] ️TheCurseOfTruth️️: The law on contempt, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
a case involving Prashant Bhushan brings back memories from the past; not very recent and not so
distant as well.It happened between December 1977 and February 1978. Two editors – Shamlal of The
Times of India and S. Mulgaokar of the The Indian Express – were charged of contempt of court; the
force behind the case was M.H. Beg, then Chief Justice of India and the issue was publication of a
statement (in Times of India) and an op-ed article (in Indian Express).Both these pertained to the
Supreme Court decision in the habeas corpus case (A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla) and that the
judges failed the constitution. The immediate context was Justice Beg’s retirement due soon and the
elevation, thanks to seniority, of Justice Y.V. Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India.Justice M.H. Beg.
Photo: Wikimedia CommonsMore in Analysis :With 50,000 COVID-19 Deaths and Highest New Daily
Cases in World, India's Outlook is GrimAn Independence Day of, by and for WomenThis Independence
Day, India Must Commit to Long-Pending Defence ReformsAndhra Pradesh: Dispelling Some Myths
About Amaravati and the Three Capitals ProjectJamia: For Delhi Police, India's Top Central Varsity is a
Free Hunting Ground for FIR 59/20In Finding Prashant Bhushan Guilty of Contempt, the SC's Reasoning
is Hardly ConvincingThe Janata Party regime had already restored the statutes protecting freedom of
expression and the press. The Emergency era laws curtailing the press were scrapped and laws securing
press freedom were restored as much. The press grabbed these as opportunity to assert their freedom,
from within the constitutional scheme and editors showing determination to push the envelope, so to
say.Two such instances were publication of an article by the Indian Express on December 8, 1977
(written by A.G. Noorani) and a news report on a statement by a number of public intellectuals in the
Times of India on January 7, 1978. Both these pertained to the way in which judges of the highest court
had behaved during the Emergency with specific reference to the habeas corpus case decided on April
28, 1976.M.H. Beg, part of the majority in the habeas corpus case, was now the Chief Justice of India
and he was to demit office on attaining 65 years of age on February 21, 1978. Two others who were part
of the majority in the case and went out to write separate but concurrent judgments in that – Justices
Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati in that order – were next in line for appointment as Chief Justices
(as per their seniority).In other words, if the canons established by conventions were to be followed
(and there were instances in the recent past when the Indira Gandhi regime had strayed out of this and
superseded seniors with juniors as Chief Justice of India) Justice Chandrachud was in the line after
Justice Beg.The article in the op-ed page of the Indian Express and the statement by public intellectuals
published in the Times of India were concerns about Justice Chandrachud’s elevation and raising
questions over his track record insofar as asserting the independence of the judiciary as warranted in
the constitutional scheme. The report that the Times of India carried of a public memorandum signed by
52 public intellectuals, including lawyers, former judges and some others was indeed a straightforward
attack on Justices Chandrachud and Bhagwati and demanding that neither of them were considered as
Chief Justice of India after Beg’s retirement.Also read: In Finding Prashant Bhushan Guilty of Contempt,
the SC’s Reasoning is Hardly ConvincingThe memorandum contained direct references to their judgment
in the Habeas Corpus case. It cited what Justice Chandrachud had said in his judgment therein:Counsel
after counsel expressed the fear that during the emergency, the executive may whip and strip and
starve the detenue and if this be our judgment, even shoot him down. Such misdeeds have not
tarnished the record of Free India and I have a diamond bright, diamond-hard hope that such things will
never come to pass.And Justice Bhagwati’s statement therein saying:I do not think it would be right for
me to allow my love of personal liberty to cloud my vision or to persuade me to place on the relevant
provision of the Constitution a construction which its language cannot reasonably bear.And added that
Justice Bhagwati had shared public platforms with the then leaders of the Emergency and thus made no
secret of his identification with the then current ‘ism’. These, the memorandum argued, were reasons
enough to supersede these two judges while appointing the Chief Justice of India. The memorandum,
after heaping praise on Justice H.R. Khanna as well as the judges of the nine high courts who had issued
a writ of habeas corpus on petitions by political prisoners (and yet these orders quashed by the Supreme
Court in the Habeas Corpus case on April 28, 1978), quoted from a statement by Justice M.C.Chagla on
the same issue:The New York Times, one of the most responsible newspapers in the world, while asking
the people of India to raise a monument to Mr. Justice Khanna, observed that the four judges would be
remembered ‘only in infamy’. If in the face of it we are to elevate Justice Chandrachud to the highest
judicial office in India, we would be making ourselves the laughing stock of the whole judicial world. In
any other part of the world, Mr. Chandrachud would have been ostracized – but instead of doing that
we are going to give him the accolade of official approval.The memorandum, as published in the
columns of the Times of India cited what Jayaprakash Narayan had held about the habeas corpus
judgment: “That the judgment has put out the last flickering candle of individual freedom” and that also
his comment on the Supreme Court’s record as “very disappointing because Mrs. Gandhi has packed it
with pliant and submissive judges except for a few.”Also Read: The Majesty of the Law Cannot Surely Be
Entrusted to Those With Skin so ThinThe op-ed article by A.G.Noorani, published in the Indian Express
on December 13, 1977, too was on similar lines and the context was the same: Justice Chandrachud’s
elevation as Chief Justice of India after Justice Beg retired. Noorani, also among the 52 signatories to the
memorandum that was reported in the Times of India, had put out these arguments in his article.The
Supreme Court took suo motu notice of these; incidentally or otherwise, this was done on authority
from the then Chief Justice, M.H. Beg. The memorandum as well as the article, after all, had thrown
sufficient innuendoes at him too and his own decision in the Habeas Corpus case.A short extract from
his judgment in the habeas corpus case will be in order here. Justice Beg had said: “We understand that
the care and concern bestowed by the State authorities upon the welfare of detenues who are well …

[12:19 PM, 8/16/2020] ️TheCurseOfTruth️️: OpinionThe Supreme Court of India is a Court of Rights, Not of
ContemptAs Indians, we have watched helplessly in the past months as the government has held our
liberties and constitutional values to ransom, while the court appears to have abandoned us.

Aug 14, 2020 | Mahua Moitra

This article was originally published on April 29, 2020, and was republished on August 14, 2020, after the
Supreme Court found Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt.I read a disturbing news report in early
March, which detailed how a prominent social activist, Harsh Mander, was severely criticised by the
Supreme Court for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the judiciary. I found it odd that the
court had prioritised focusing on his alleged remarks, rather than the grounds of his petition which
concerned political hate speech.In similar vein I read a newspaper headline two days ago which really
stayed with me: “Bar members can’t hold the judiciary to ransom: SC”. The irony in that statement was
so acute that I could not help but sigh in dismay.As Indians, we have watched helplessly in the past
months as the government has held our liberties and constitutional values to ransom, while the court
appears to have abandoned us. It has delayed, dithered and finally refused to take a stand on most
issues that are fundamental to our democratic ethos and indeed to every principle laid down by our
founding fathers. Constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act? No urgency, let matters settle
down. Habeas corpus? Not important, it can wait. No internet access for the people in an entire state?
Sorry, won’t strike down restrictions that are unreasonable. Desperate, dying migrants? Adjourn,
adjourn and adjourn. Give the government enough time to render the matter infructuous. How about
the legitimacy and transparency of political funding via electoral bonds? Do we really need to rule on
that right now – elections are happening efficiently after all aren’t they. I could go on and on.More in
Politics :Watch | 'Bihar Floods a Political Disaster Not a Natural One'The Past and Future of Facebook
and BJP's Mutually Beneficial Relationship'Stop Harassment of Academics': Activists, Scholars Express
Solidarity With DU Teacher Rakesh Ranjan16-Year-Old Killed in Shopian 'Encounter' Wanted to Earn
Money to Pay for Studies, Says FamilyMalice in Wonderland: I Imagine a Tale for Independence
DayIndependence: The Day, the Word and What It Means for KashmirI read again with a mixture of
irony and amusement the exchanges in court between our judges and a senior member of the bar,
Prashant Bhushan, for whom I carry no brief. Bhushan had been fairly caustic in his observations about
the court, post the migrant wage-payment writ being dismissed. When he reappeared before the court
in a different case, their Lordships hauled him up for “insulting the institution” and asked why they
should hear him given that he appeared to have no faith in it. To which he said that he was only
expressing his deep anguish at the bench accepting the Centre’s representations without verification.
Was he wrong in saying that? Was it wrong to expect a neutral arbiter of disputes to doubt those before
it, equally?I too experienced something starkly similar, first hand, only a week ago. The playbook goes
something like this. The solicitor general appears in any case that has the potential of greatly
embarrassing the government, or of exposing its clumsiness in dealing with a crisis. With great dexterity,
he almost always manages to get the very first hearing adjourned by at least a week, often on the
flimsiest of excuses. In my case he had “forgotten” to serve me a copy of the Centre’s status report. He
then claimed it was the court registry which had erred. In any event, this convenient and very tactical
error (I’m sorry but I cannot give th…

[12:20 PM, 8/16/2020] ️TheCurseOfTruth️️: logotreandingnewssupportSUPPORTsearch_headerhome

POLITICS ECONOMY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECURITY CULTURE OPINION VIDEO ANALYSIS MEDIA
GOVERNMENT WORLD EDITOR'S PICK TOP STORIES LIVE WIRESCIENCENEXT

ADVERTISEMENT

LawRead: What the Supreme Court Said While Holding Prashant Bhushan in ContemptBhushan's tweet
"undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and
directly affronts the majesty of law", the bench found.

Aug 14, 2020 | The Wire Staff

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan. Photo: PTI/Arun SharmaLawyer Prashant Bhushan. Photo: PTI/Arun
SharmaNew Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday held advocate and activist Prashant Bhushan in
contempt of court for two recent tweets. While reading out the order, Justice B.R. Gavai said that
Bhushan committed “serious contempt of the court”.The tweets in question were critical of the top
court and posted by Bhushan on Twitter on June 27 and June 29. The June 27 tweet said, “When
historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even
without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this
destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”The June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI
S.A. Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a
BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in
Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”The bench comprised
Justices Arun Mishra, Gavai and Krishna Murari. Here, The Wire bring you some of the highlights of the
108-page judgment on the matter.More in Politics :Watch | 'Bihar Floods a Political Disaster Not a
Natural One'The Past and Future of Facebook and BJP's Mutually Beneficial Relationship'Stop
Harassment of Academics': Activists, Scholars Express Solidarity With DU Teacher Rakesh Ranjan16-Year-
Old Killed in Shopian 'Encounter' Wanted to Earn Money to Pay for Studies, Says FamilyMalice in
Wonderland: I Imagine a Tale for Independence DayIndependence: The Day, the Word and What It
Means for Kashmir‘False, malicious and scandalous’The judges have said that Bhushan made a “wild
allegation” in the second tweet in question, by insinuating that the CJI was enjoying joy rides on a
motorcycle while the Supreme Court was in lockdown.“The said tweet is capable of giving an impression
to a layman, that the CJI is enjoying his ride on a motorbike worth Rs.50 lakh belonging to a BJP leader,
at a time when he has kept the Supreme Court in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental
right to access justice,” the judgment says.Also read: The Supreme Court of India is a Court of Rights,
Not of Contempt“In this premise, making such wild allegation thereby giving an impression, that the CJI
is enjoying riding an expensive bike, while he keeps the SC in lockdown mode and thereby denying
citizens their fundamental right to access justice, is undoubtedly false, malicious and scandalous. It has
the tendency to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of judiciary and the
institution of the CJI and undermining the dignity and authority of the administration of justice,” it
continues.Though Bhushan’s tweets did not say that the court was closed completely, the bench
believes that is the message it conveyed. “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,” the judgment says.‘Directly affronts the majesty of law’On the July 27 tweet, the court
said it was not going to comment on the first part (whether democracy was being destroyed) but took
umbrage at Bhushan linking the Supreme Court to an Emergency-like situation.“The impression which
the said tweet tends to give to an ordinary citizen is, that when the historians in future look back, the
impression they will get is, that in the last six years the democracy has been destroyed in India without
even a formal emergency and that the Supreme Court had a particular role in the said destruction and
the last four Chief Justices of India had more particular role in the said destruction,” the judgment
reads.“An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron
hand. 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.”“We do not want to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the first part of the
tweet, inasmuch as we do not want to convert this proceeding into a platform for political debate. We
are only concerned with the damage that is sought to be done to the institution of administration of
justice. In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of
the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.”‘Magnanimity cannot be
stretched’Bhushan’s words, the bench believes, do not come under criticism that should be met with
magnanimity.“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,” the judgment reads.Watch: ‘Borders on Criminal’: Prashant Bhushan on
‘Govt’s Gross Mismanagement’ of COVID-19“No doubt, that it may be better in many cases for the
judiciary to adopt a magnanimously charitable attitude even when utterly uncharitable and unfair
criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide concern for improvement. However, 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. Fearless and impartial courts of justice are the
bulwark of a healthy democracy and the confidence in them cannot be permitted to be impaired by
malicious attacks upon them,” it continues.Read the full judgment below.Supreme Court judgment on
Prashant Bhushan’s tweets by The Wire on Scribd

Whatsapp sharefacebook sharetweet button

Get the latest news, top headlines, opinions, analysis and much more from India and World including
current news headlines on elections, politics, economy, business, science, culture on The Wire.

- POWERED BY -

Readwhere CMS

[12:21 PM, 8/16/2020] ️TheCurseOfTruth️️: logotreandingnewssupportSUPPORTsearch_headerhome

POLITICS ECONOMY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECURITY CULTURE OPINION VIDEO ANALYSIS MEDIA
GOVERNMENT WORLD EDITOR'S PICK TOP STORIES LIVE WIRESCIENCENEXT

ADVERTISEMENT

AnalysisIn Finding Prashant Bhushan Guilty of Contempt, the SC's Reasoning is Hardly
ConvincingLawIronically, by punishing Bhushan, the bench is unlikely to deter future historians from
saying what Bhushan predicted. If anything, future historians are likely to consider the punishment
Bhushan receives for tweeting what he did as supporting evidence for such an assessment of our times.

Aug 15, 2020 | V. Venkatesan

Prashant Bhushan (left), Justice Arun Mishra (right), and in the background, the Supreme Court of India.
Photos: PTIPrashant Bhushan (left), Justice Arun Mishra (right), and in the background, the Supreme
Court of India. Photos: PTINew Delhi: The Supreme Court bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, and
Krishna Murari, in its judgment on Friday, found lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court
for two tweets which it said had shaken the “very foundation of constitutional democracy”.In the first
tweet, the bench found Bhushan’s statement that the CJI kept the Supreme Court in lockdown mode,
denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice “patently false, scandalous and malicious”. “It
has the tendency to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of judiciary and the
institution of the CJI and undermines the dignity and authority of the administration of justice”, the
bench concluded.The first tweet which the court found contemptuous, said:“CJI rides a 50 Lakh
motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when
he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”More in
Analysis :With 50,000 COVID-19 Deaths and Highest New Daily Cases in World, India's Outlook is GrimAn
Independence Day of, by and for WomenThis Independence Day, India Must Commit to Long-Pending
Defence ReformsContempt, the Press and the Judiciary: A Tale from Another TimeAndhra Pradesh:
Dispelling Some Myths About Amaravati and the Three Capitals ProjectJamia: For Delhi Police, India's
Top Central Varsity is a Free Hunting Ground for FIR 59/20Dividing the tweet into two parts, the bench
found that the first part dealing with the CJI riding a motorcycle without a mask or helmet was not
contemptuous because it is a criticism of the CJI in his individual capacity. It is only the second part
which, according to the bench, is false and has the tendency to shake the confidence of the public at
large in the institution of the CJI and that of the judiciary.Reply affidavit ignoredA tweet, by the very fact
that it cannot exceed 240 characters, has to be precise and brief, and therefore, devoid of qualifications,
if its writer finds it unnecessary. In his reply affidavit, Bhushan has claimed that the CJI kept the court
“virtually” in lockdown mode due to COVID fears (with hardly any cases being heard and those heard
also by an unsatisfactory process through video conferencing).Also Read: The Majesty of the Law Cannot
Surely Be Entrusted to Those With Skin so ThinMore important, he didn’t suggest that the CJI denied
citizens their fundamental right to access justice, but that the lockdown mode – which he had to impose
on the court, for want of an alternative – resulted in such deprivation. This is clearly the impression one
would get if one reads Bhushan’s reply affidavit. But Friday’s judgment shows that the bench has not
read it.Many others, including former judges of the Supreme Court, have criticised the court’s inability
to secure the rights of the poor, marginalised and migrant workers to access justice during the
lockdown. Therefore, the bench’s move to find Bhushan alone guilty for making these remarks, while
closing its eyes and ears to similar remarks made by others in other public platforms, makes one wonder
whether it had been selective in invoking contempt jurisdiction against Bhushan.Similarly, Bhushan also
referred to widespread dissatisfaction among lawyers with the continued ‘virtual’ functioning of the
court and made a fervent demand for early return, with safeguards, of its normal functioning. The
bench has no explanation for why it found Bhushan’s grievance contemptuous, while other stakeholders
have expressed similar sentiments.In any case, the bench didn’t suggest that the linking of the non-
contemptuous part of the tweet about the CJI riding the motorcycle with the court’s functioning during
the lockdown was the offence. Since such an inference was not drawn by the bench itself, it is not clear
why it found him guilty.The bench has clearly erred in analysing the tweet as it is, without considering
his reply affidavit, which explains it. If the reply affidavit is not to be considered, why insist on it as part
of the procedure and a sign of extending an opportunity of being heard?As Bhushan put it in his reply
affidavit: “Due to the COVID pandemic, the subsequent lockdown and the humanitarian crisis it had
created, with the Supreme Court not functioning regularly, access to justice was seriously
imperilled”.The bench has made no reference to this explanation of his tweet in the reply affidavit.
None, including the bench, can deny that if the court functioned regularly, more matters could have
been heard, and access to justice enhanced as a result.Also Read: What the Supreme Court Said While
Holding Prashant Bhushan in ContemptBhushan has not expressed any view on whether the normal
functioning of the court amid the pandemic is feasible. But he is certainly entitled to express his hope
that it should be able to function normally with the implied mandatory safeguards like social distancing
and mask wearing. It is hard to understand how such an expression of his view could be held
contemptuous.What future historians will sayThe bench’s argument about the second tweet, likewise,
has no legs to stand on. The text of this tweet reads:“When historians in future look back at the last 6
years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will
particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the
last 4 CJIs.”In its judgment, the bench clearly says that it is not concerned about the first part of the
second tweet, wherein Bhushan refers to a possibility of future historians looking back at the last six
years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India without a formal emergency. It is not
concerned because the first part has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. But it is here that the
bench’s unstated and unarticulated leap in logic – which is otherwise clear to anyone who reads the
judgment – gets particularly interesting.In paragraph 67, the bench admits that the emergency era has
been considered as the blackest era in the history of Indian democracy. Supposing if one says today,
claiming to be a historian of that period, that the Supreme Court had played a dubious role in that era,
with the then CJI playing an especially pliant role in aid of the executive, the current Supreme Court is
not likely to consider it an offence of contempt of court.This is because, in the bench’s view, the
emergency era is not contemporary history, and therefore, historians of today can freely express an
opinion about that era now.Also. Read: Justice Madan Lokur—Supreme Court Deserves an ‘F’ Grade For
Its Handling of MigrantsIn addition, the current bench knows that the court itself in 2017 – while
declaring privacy as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy – had overruled its previous decision in
A.D.M.Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, delivered during the Emergency, which was widely perceived by
contemporary analysts as well as (future) historians as having contributed to the eclipse of democracy
during that era.But supposing Bhushan had written – during the Emergency – that a future historian
would surely find the Supreme Court’s role in the era dubious for conniving at the destruction of
democracy, would the court – at that point of time – be justified in considering such a statement
contemptuous? And if it did, would Bhushan be allowed to cite facts to back his claim?Coming back to
the present, if Bhushan wishes to crystal gaze and predict what a future historian might say 45 years
from today about the role the Supreme Court played in second decade of the 21st century – an era
which has, to many, witnessed the weakening of democratic institutions – this should be considered his
personal view, one to which he is surely entitled, whether one agrees or disagrees with it today.Why is
the bench so concerned with Bhushan’s predictions about what future historians might say on the
Supreme Court’s role in contemporary politics? It is almost as if a sense of paranoia seems to have
gripped the bench about what future historians may say, in the light of Bhushan’s tweets. In other
words, the bench has found Bhushan guilty because it fears he is right about what future historians will
say. What those historians will say about the current Supreme Court is clearly not in the hands of the
bench; but the bench believes it has the power to indict and punish someone who claims to have
foreknowledge about what the future historian might say.Ironically, by punishing Bhushan, the bench is
unlikely to deter future historians from saying what Bhushan tweeted. If anything, future historians are
likely to consider the punishment Bhushan receives for saying what he did as supporting evidence for
such an assessment of our times.In paragraph 68, the bench says that there cannot be any manner of
doubt that the said tweet is directed against the Supreme Court, and tends to give an impression that
the 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 bench declares, as if it has made some discovery. Of course, it is.The criticism
is not against a particular judge but the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the CJI,
the bench adds. The impression that the said tweet tends to convey is that the judges who have
presided over the Supreme Court in the period of the last six years have played a particular role in the
destruction of Indian democracy and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in it. None could have
been clearer than the bench itself in its interpretation of the tweet.Also Read: Judicial Independence:
Three Developments that Tell Us Fair is Foul and Foul is FairBut the bench missed the essential part:
Bhushan attributes this perception to future historians, and he is entitled to do so, because it is his view.
The bench may have a different view of how a future historian will consider the current Supreme Court
of India. In answer to Bhushan’s tweet, it should articulate its own view, perhaps by starting a new
Twitter handle for the Supreme Court.Leaps of logicThe bench then made a bizarre link between the
reach of the tweet and the probable absence of good faith. It suggests:“The publication by tweet
reaches millions of people and as such, such a huge extent of publication would also be one of the
factors that requires to be taken into consideration while considering the question of good faith.”In
other words, because the tweet reaches millions of people, it should be necessarily lacking in good faith.
How these two are linked is not at all clear.Similarly, the bench’s view that because Bhushan has been a
lawyer of 30 years standing, his tweets cannot be fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made
bona fide in the public interest:“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.”Again, the bench seeks to assume
that these two phenomena are related, but the causal link here is not at all clear to anyone.In other
words, by finding Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for predicting what the future historian will say of
the current Supreme Court, one wonders whether the bench has indicted itself, by expressing its tacit
agreement with him.Bhushan, at best, could be guilty of having tried to imagine, within the limited
space allowed by a tweet, a facet of the counterfactual history of the present, through the eyes of a
future historian. Whether he is correct in his analysis is for the future historian to judge. Not this bench,
which needs to learn what counterfactual history is all about.

Whatsapp sharefacebook sharetweet button

Get the latest news, top headlines, opinions, analysis and much more from India and World including
current news headlines on elections, politics, economy, business, science, culture on The Wire.

- POWERED BY -

Readwhere CMS
[12:26 PM, 8/16/2020] ️TheCurseOfTruth️️: Home

News

Columns

Dealstreet

Interviews

Apprentice Lawyer

Viewpoint

Legal Jobs

Prashant bhushan, Twitter, Supreme Court

Prashant bhushan, Twitter, Supreme Court

LITIGATION NEWS

If such an attack is not dealt with, it may affect national honour and prestige: Supreme Court in Prashant
Bhushan contempt verdict

"...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", the
Court held.

Meera Emmanuel

Aug 14, 2020, 3:41 PM IST

Advocate Prashant Bhushan was today found guilty of criminal contempt of court by a three-judge
Bench of the Supreme Court over two tweets posted last June that were critical of the judiciary.

It is interesting to note that the 108-page judgment delivered by the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR
Gavai and Krishna Murari does not specify any one author.
The Bench justifies its decision to view Bhushan's tweets as scandalising the Court and lowering its
authority by taking recourse a plethora of Supreme Court judgments on contempt law.

No error in listing suo motu matter on judicial side, says Court

The Court starts off its judgment by addressing the objection raised by Bhushan over the listing of the
case on the judicial side without the consent of the Attorney General after a complaint over Bhushan's
tweet was registered first by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari.

Prashant bhushan, Twitter, Supreme Court

Actions amount to usurpation of Chief Justice's powers: Prashant Bhushan moves Supreme Court against
its Secretary General in contempt case

Relying on the Apex Court's recent ruling in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors, the Bench held that there was no error
in registering a suo motu case based on the information received by it.

The only requirement is that the procedure followed is just, fair and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. The Court added that this was ensured in the present case.

On the scope of contempt jurisdiction

The Court went on to cite various judgments that expounded on when the Court can exercise its
contempt jurisdiction. In view of these judgments, the Bench reiterated the following observations,
among others:

When a statement is made against a judge as an individual, contempt jurisdiction would not be
available. The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to judges personally from
imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals However, when the statement is made against
a judge as a judge and which has an adverse effect in the administration of justice, the Court would
certainly be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction.
If a citizen exceeds his free speech rights in a bona fide manner, the Court would be slow in exercising
contempt jurisdiction and show magnanimity. However, when such a statement is calculated in order to
malign the image of judiciary, the Court would not remain a silent spectator. When the authority of this
Court is itself under attack, the Court would not be a onlooker.

If constructive criticism is made in order to enable systemic correction in the system, the Court would
not invoke the contempt jurisdiction. However, the Court will act with seriousness and severity where
justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the judges and where the attack is
calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process.

it is not necessary that there should in fact be an actual interference with the course of administration
of justice but it is enough if the offending publication is likely or if it tends in any way to interfere with
the proper administration of law.

No act can be permitted, which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness
and impartiality of the administration of justice.

The judiciary cannot be immune from criticism. However, when that criticism is based on obvious
distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the
judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored. An action for contempt of court
should not be frequently or lightly taken. But, at the same time, the Court should not abstain from using
this weapon even when its use is needed to correct standards of behaviour in a grossly and repeatedly
erring quarter.

In re tweet on CJI SA Bobde

The first tweet Bhushan was hauled up for pertained to his commentary on a picture of Chief Justice of
India SA Bobde on a high-end motorcycle. Bhushan had stated:
"CJI rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or
helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to
access Justice!"

The Court took critical note that,

"The impression that the said tweet intends to give is that the CJI as the head of the Indian judiciary has
kept the Supreme Court in lockdown mode, thereby denying citizens their fundamental right to access
justice."

The three-judge Bench found this to be patently false on the following grounds:

On the relevant date, the Supreme Court was on summer vacation. Even during this period, Benches of
the Supreme Court were regularly functioning.

Physical court hearings were suspended in view of the COVID-19 pandemic last March, but virtual
hearings were being conducted. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from March
23 till August 4 is 879. During this period, the Court has heard 1,2748 matters. Further the Court has
dealt with 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Prashant Bhushan himself had appeared before the Court during this time, both as an advocate and as
litigant.

Therefore, the statement that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is factually incorrect and patently false,
even to the knowledge of Bhushan. The Court took critical note that he has made a scandalous and
malicious statement after having himself availed the right of an access to justice during the said period,
not only as a lawyer but also as a litigant.

The Bench proceeded to opine,

"In this premise, making such wild allegation thereby giving an impression, that the CJI is enjoying riding
an expensive bike, while he keeps the SC in lockdown mode and thereby denying citizens their
fundamental right to access justice, is undoubtedly false, malicious and scandalous. It has the tendency
to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of judiciary and the institution of the CJI
and undermining the dignity and authority of the administration of justice. We are unable to accept the
contention of the alleged contemnor No.1, that the said statement was a bona fide criticism made by
him on account of his anguish of non functioning of the courts physically."

In re tweet on last four CJIs and the Supreme Court

In his second controversial tweet, Bhushan had expressed his opinion on the role of last four CJIs amid
the state of affairs in the country, stating,

"When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in
India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this
destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs."

The Court said that it is not commenting on the first part of the tweet concerning the alleged
destruction of Indian democracy over the last six years as "we do not want to convert this proceeding
into a platform for political debate."

However, the Court has taken exception to the latter part of the tweet, which the Bench observed tends
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."

To decide on whether Bhushan had expressed this opinion in good faith, and if he should be proceeded
against for his tweet, the Court also considered the following factors:

The extent of publication - The Bench noted that "the publication by tweet reaches millions of people."

The fact that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi
High Court.
In this backdrop, the Court said,

"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."

It was further held,

"In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the
Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law ... the tweets which are
based on the distorted facts, in our considered view, amount to committing of ‘criminal contempt.’"

Supreme Court

The Bench added,

"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. Fearless and impartial courts of justice are the bulwark of a
healthy democracy and the confidence in them cannot be permitted to be impaired by malicious attacks
upon them."

The Court, therefore, found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt. However, it discharged Twitter from
the contempt case, accepting its explanation that the platform is only an intermediary that "does not
have any control on what the users post on the platform."

"It has also showed bona fides immediately after the cognizance was taken by this Court as it has
suspended both the tweets. We, therefore, discharge the notice issued to the alleged contemnor No.2
(Twitter)", the Court said.
The judgment of the Supreme Court holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt is an
"assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the "dignity and majesty" of the Court
in the eyes of the public", said noted jurist Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate.

In a statement given to LiveLaw, he said that the verdict appeared to be "a calculated assault on the one
segment of civil society which is familiar with what happens in Court, and the conduct of judges in and
out of Court, namely members of the legal profession" and that it will have a "chilling effect on free
speech".

Read the full statement :

"The judgment is an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the "dignity and
majesty" of the Court in the eyes of the public. The judgment is clearly erroneous, both in its reasoning
and its analysis and interpretation of the contempt jurisdiction. However, it does not come as a surprise
to those familiar with the judgments of the Supreme Court on contempt, over the years. Leading writers
on Constitutional Law have commented on the Supreme Court being selective in deploying this power
conferred upon it by the Constitution. The differences in the cases of P. Shiv Shankar, being the Law
Minister, and [EMS] Namboodiripad or Arundhati Roy are stark.

Much more worrying is that this judgment appears to be a calculated assault on the one segment of civil
society which is familiar with what happens in Court, and the conduct of judges in and out of Court,
namely members of the legal profession. It is these members who can speak to the goings-on in the
judiciary with a degree of intimacy that others lack. The judgment will have a chilling effect on free
speech generally, and that appears to be its intent, but it is also intended to send out a strong message
to the legal profession, by making an example of Prashant Bhushan for daring to exercise his
fundamental right to freedom of speech.

The tragedy for the country is that this will, in all probability, succeed—both in its intention and effect.
The judgment will be cited as precedent by the Court to protect an institution that knows that its
conduct and its position lays it open to adverse comment and criticism across the spectrum of civil
society, as happened recently in its initial response to the migrant crisis. That is something that the
Court clearly cannot tolerate, despite all its protestations to the contrary."

On August 14, the Supreme Court held Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for tweeting against the
judiciary. One tweet, made in reference to a picture of CJI Bobde seated on a Harley Davidson bike,
alleged that the CJI was enjoying expensive bike rides while keeping the Supreme Court under lockdown.

Another tweet alleged that the Supreme Court contributed to the destruction of democracy in the last
six years, and the last 4 CJIs played a particular role in that.

The Court held that the tweets were based on "distorted facts" and had the effect of undermining the
authority and dignity of the court.

"The tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian
democracy...There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the
institution of judiciary", observed a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari in the
judgment.

[Prashant Bhushan Contempt] If Two Tweets Can Bring Down Court's Authority, Then It Is Not As Strong
As We Imagined: Senior Adv Sanjay Hegde