top of page
lexhodie

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE AGAINST MR. PRASHANT BHUSHAN - A DETAILED NOTE

R. Kaviya

Mr. Prashant Bhushan is a Public Interest Lawyer and Activist. In recent times, newspapers and social media are flooded with information and memes relating to the contempt of court case against him.


What is a Contempt Case?

Contempt means to disrespect or disregard. When any person willfully disobeys the Court or its judgment; or publishes anything which scandalizes, prejudices, or interferes with the authority of the Court he commits contempt. It is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

What is the case against Mr. Prashant Bhushan about?

The Supreme Court issued a notice in a contempt case against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, in connection with two tweets posted by him in June.


The two tweets, as reproduced in the court, said:

  • “When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last four CJIs.”

  • “The CJI rides a Rs 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC on lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!”

These tweets were considered by the Court as a serious contempt of court. The court said that his tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of the judiciary and undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India.


The Court demanded an apology:

The Supreme Court gave Bhushan time to think over and tender an apology. Bhushan’s stand was that he had not tweeted in a fit of absent-mindedness but had expressed his bona fide belief on the state of Judiciary.

Why apology: Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, provides that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, a statement of apology to the court by Bhushan would allow the court to let him off without punishment.


Final verdict of the Court:

The court sentenced the contemnor with a fine of Re.1/ to be deposited with the Registry of the Court, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.


The full judgment is available at:


Reasons for the verdict:

  • The Court, from the very beginning, wanted to silence this matter and persuaded him to tender an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual. But, its request went in vain and it was felt that the simple issuance of warning is not going to suffice in the instant case.

  • As observed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, democracy is based on free debate and open discussion, however, cannot go to the extent of the scurrilous attack and shaking the faith of the general public in such institutions.

  • No doubt that free speech is a fundamental right as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, it cannot be forgotten that rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions, and the rights of others cannot be infringed in the process. The same has to be balanced.

  • This sort of attack in a country like ours has the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the judiciary. People will think whatever Bhushan is saying is correct because he himself is a part of the Institution.   There is a difference between statements of a layman and an officer of the court.  Lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the institution.

Another case against Mr. Prashant Bhushan

In 2009, a case was filed against Bhushan by a senior advocate Harish Salve in connection with an interview published in Tehelka magazine, in which he made allegations of corruption in the Judiciary. This case will be heard by a Constitutional bench on 10th September 2020.


141 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Image by Bill Oxford

For the INQUISITIVE CLASS

bottom of page