[Contempt] Prashant Bhushan's Tweets Tend to Shake Public Confidence In Institution Of Judiciary: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt, observed that his tweets tend to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciaryJustice BR Gavai, who authored the judgment which runs to 108 pages, has made a threadbare analysis of Bhushan's two tweets to see whether they are entitled to protection under Article 19(1) of the Constitution as a fair criticism of the system, made in good faith in the larger public interest or not. The bench, also comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Krishna Murari, observed that the statement in his tweet that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is patently false.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'The bench observed that a citizen while exercising right under Article 19(1) is entitled to make a fair criticism of a judge, judiciary and its functioning. However, the bench added:"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'.When the authority of this Court is itself under attack, the Court would not be a onlookerSr. Advocate Dave had relied on Justice Krishna Iyer's judgment in Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & another to contend that when proceedings in contempt are taken for vilification of the judge, the question which the court has to ask is whether the vilification is of the judge as a judge or it is the vilification of the judge as an individual. The bench, in this regard, said:As submitted by Shri Dave, relying on the observation made by Krishna Iyer, J, in the case of Baradakanta Mishra (supra), if a constructive criticism is made in order to enable systemic correction in the system, the Court would not invoke the contempt jurisdiction. However, as observed by the same learned judge in Re: S. Mulgaokar, 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. Justice Krishna Iyer further observed, that after evaluating the totality of factors, if the Court considers the 93 attack on the Judge or Judges to be scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him, who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and streamThe court further said. 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 92 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 integritySource of Power To Initiate Contempt Is Article 129 The court also considered the submission made by Sr. Advocate Dushyant Dave that the present proceedings are initiated on the basis of the petition filed by Mr. Maheshwari, the same, it cannot be treated as a suo motu contempt petition. He had contended that unless there is a consent given by Attorney General for India, the proceedings could not have been initiated on the basis of the said complaint. Addressing this submission, the bench extensively refers to observations made in an earlier judgment in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors., it said that the source of power of Supreme Court for proceeding for an action of...

[Contempt] Prashant Bhushan's Tweets Tend to Shake Public Confidence In Institution Of Judiciary: SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Contempt] Prashant Bhushan's Tweets Tend to Shake Public Confidence In Institution Of Judiciary: SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers