The Indian Constitutional Democracy Stands on Bedrock of Rule of Law, an Attempt to Shake it has to be Dealt with an Iron Hand: SC in Prashant Bhushan Contempt Verdict

(Judicial Quest News Network)

“ 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 the Democracy in the last six years  and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in the same”, The Court Held

Lawyer-Activist Prashant Bhushan found guilty of criminal contempt of Court over his two tweets posted last June in which he had criticized judiciary.

Prashant Bhushan had commented on a phot o of Chief Justice SR Bobde on a Superbike.

A Three judges bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai, Arun Mishra and Krishna Murari observed that the statement in his tweet that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is patently false. It is an interesting fact that the 108 pages Judgement does not specify any one author of the Judgement.

The Bench justifies its decision to view Bhushan’s tweets as scandalizing the Court and lowering its authority by taking recourse a plethora of Supreme Court judgements on Contempt of Law.

Bhushan in his defense had submitted that “At the outset I admit that I did not notice that the bike was on a stand and therefore wearing a helmet was not required. I therefore regret that part of my tweet. However, I stand by the remaining part of what I have stated in my tweet.”

 The Bench observed that a citizen while exercising right under Article 19(1) is entitled to make a fair critism of a judge, Judiciary and its functioning However the Bench added:

“However, the right under Article 19(1) is subject to restriction under clause (2) of Article 19. An attempt has to be made to properly balance the right under Article 19(1) and the reasonable restriction under clause (2) of Article 19. If a citizen while exercising his right under Article 19(1) exceeds the limits and makes a statement, which tends to scandalize

the judges and institution of administration of justice, such an action would come in the ambit of contempt of court. If a citizen makes a statement which tends to undermine the dignity and authority of this Court, the same would come in the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’. When such a statement tends to shake the public confidence in the judicial institutions, the same would also come within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’.

The Apex Court further held that no doubt, that when a statement is made against a judge as an individual, the contempt jurisdiction would not be available.

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. No doubt, that while exercising the right of fair criticism under Article 19(1), if a citizen bonafidely exceeds the right in the public interest, this Court would be slow in exercising the 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. The word ‘authority’ as explained by Wilmot, C.J. and approved by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Baradakanta Mishra (supra) does not mean the coercive power of the judges, but a deference and respect which is paid to them and their acts, from an opinion of their justice and integrity.

In the light of these guiding principles, let us analyze the tweets, admittedly, made by the alleged contemnor No.1 which have given rise to this proceeding.

We have reproduced both the tweets in the order dated 22.7.2020, which is reproduced in the beginning.

The first part of the first tweet states, that ‘CJI rides a 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet’. This 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 states, ‘at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice’. Undisputedly, the said part of the statement criticizes the CJI in his capacity as the Chief Justice of India i.e. the Administrative Head of the judiciary of the country.

The impression that the said part of the tweet attempts to give to a layman is, 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.

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.

It can thus be clearly seen, that the statement, that the CJI has kept the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice is patently false.

It may not be out of place to mention, that the alleged contemnor No.1 has himself appeared on various occasions in number of matters through video conferencing.

Not only that, but even in his personal capacity the alleged contemnor No.1 has taken recourse to the access of justice by approaching this Court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.131 of 2020, challenging the First Information Report lodged against him at Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot, Gujarat, wherein this Court had passed the following order on 1.5.2020:

In the second part of his tweet he mentioned 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 CJIs in particular.

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 in the same.

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

“It has also shown the bona fides immediately after the cognizance was taken by this Court it has suspended both the tweets. We, therefore, discharge the notice issued to the alleged Contemnor 2(Twitter)”. The Court Said.

[Read the Judgement]