Contempt of court, as a notion that seeks to protect judicial institutions from driven attacks and unjustified criticism, and as a legal instrument to punish those who lower its authority,Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court and High Courtrespectively the power to punish contempt of itself. 

The Supreme Court on 14th August 2020 held advocate and activist Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court. This case was taken up suo moto by the court based on two of Bhushan’s tweets, criticizing judiciarylater a complaint was filled by Mahek Maheshwari.

First, Bhushan had tweeted, “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 apex court made a distinction between when a statement is made against a judge as an individual versus in his capacity as a judge. The contempt jurisdiction would not be available for the former, the Supreme Court has said. But when the statement is made against a judge as a judge and has an adverse effect in the administration of justice, the court would certainly be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction, it held.

The second tweet was noticed by the court on the day of the first hearing in the case as it was published in a leading daily.In another tweet, he had on June  27, 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 top court had on July 22 taken strong exception to both the tweets and initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Bhushan and Twitter Inc.However, it let off Twitter as it was only an intermediary which didn’t have any control on what the users posted on the platform and it also showed its bona fides by immediately suspending Bhushan’s both controversial tweets and held activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his tweets against Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and four last CJIs, saying, “Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this court cannot be ignored.”

A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said, “If an attack is made to shake the confidence that the public at large has in the institution of judiciary, such an attack has to be dealt with 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.”

The top court had earlier stated that it is of the prima facie view that the statements brought the administration of justice “in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large”.

Prakash Bhushan in response to the allegations, had refused to apologise for the tweets but expressed regretted if his comments had caused any hurt or lowered the prestige of the judiciary.He had defended the tweets arguing that they were a well-intentioned critique of the top court and did not amount to scandalising the court.

This is not the only contempt case that Bhushan is facing in the top court but also a  case with same charge has been filled against Prakash Bhushan in 2009which was initiated  over his comments made to the Tehelka magazine,in which he had allegedly made serious imputations against former chief justices of India S.H. Kapadia and K.G. Balakrishnan. The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has decided to hear the case on merits after Bhushan filed his preliminary response in the case. The Supreme Court took Suo motu cognisance of the issue after a complaint was filed by advocate Harish Salve. Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal was also named in the case. On 10thNovember 2010, a three-judge bench held that the petition was maintainable. Since then, however, the case has been heard only 17 times until recently.

Talking ofcase filed by Mahek Maheshwari against Prakash Bhushan, On, 20thAugust2020, the Supreme Court had given Bhushan time till 24th August 2020 "to submit an unconditional apology, if he so desires." The court had also asked Bhushan to reconsider his statement which he submitted in the last hearing.

On  24th August 2020, Advocate Prakash Bhushan has filed a supplementary affidavit before the Supreme Court, refusing to tender an apology with respect to the statements made by him over twitter, in connection to the functioning of Supreme Court as wells as CJI.

Bhushan said the remarks made by him were a “constructive criticism” of the court and therefore retracting in the same would amount to tendering and “insincere apology”. Bhushan stood by his statement and said that it was “well considered and well thought of he said that granting time will not serve any purpose”.  The hearing will take place on 25th August 2020.


This news has been reported by Vaishnavi Rai, who can be reached at vaishnavisarojrai[at]gmail[dot]com