Supreme Court

Re: Prashant Bhushan And Anr.

MANU/SC/0587/2020

14.08.2020

Contempt of Court

Attorney General's Consent is not necessary in Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings

A petition came to be filed in present Court by Mahek Maheshwari bringing to the notice of present Court, a tweet made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, alleged contemnor No.1 praying therein to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors for wilfully and deliberately using hate/scandalous speech against present Court and entire judicial system. The Registry placed the said petition on the Administrative side of present Court seeking direction as to whether it should be listed for hearing or not, as consent of the learned Attorney General for India had not been obtained by the said Maheshwari to file the said petition.

When petition was placed before present Court, present Court ordered suo motu cognizance of the tweets. Preliminary objection raised by alleged contemnor No.1 is that, since the present proceedings are initiated on the basis of the petition filed by Mr. Maheshwari, the same cannot be treated as a suo motu contempt petition. He submitted, that unless there was a consent of the learned Attorney General for India, the proceedings could not have been initiated on the basis of complaint of Mr. Maheshwari.

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 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.

Present Court reiterated that, fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt, if it is made in good faith and in public interest. For ascertaining the good faith and the public interest, the Courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved.

No doubt, that while exercising the right of fair criticism under Article 19(1) of Constitution of India, 1950, if a citizen bonafidely exceeds the right in the public interest, present 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 present Court is itself under attack, the Court would not be a onlooker.

The tweet against Chief Justice of India (CJI) attempts to give to a layman is, that the CJI is riding a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader 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 is common knowledge, that the emergency era has been considered as the blackest era in the history of Indian democracy. The impression which another 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 criticism is not against a particular judge but the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the CJI. The impression that, 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.

The tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of the 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.

Present Court is of opinion is that, said tweet by Contemnor no. 1 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 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.

The tweets which are based on the distorted facts amounts to committing of ‘criminal contempt’. Insofar as the alleged contemnor No.2 is concerned, present Court accepts the explanation given by it, that it is only an intermediary and that it 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. Therefore, present Court discharge the notice issued to the alleged contemnor No.2. Contemnor No.1 – Mr. Prashant Bhushan is held guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court.

Tags : Contempt Proceedings Attorney general Consent

Share :