Critical Analysis: In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr. [Suo Motu Contempt Petition (CRL) No. 1 of 2020]
The critical analysis of the Prashant Bhushan Contempt case helps us to determine the role of the court while it exercising its Suo Motu power in case of contempt.
Table of Content:
- Introduction
- What is Contempt of Court?
- Punishment for Contempt of Court
- Summary of the facts
- Tweets made by Prashant Bhushan
- Issues
- The contention of the parties
- Judgment
- Critical Analysis
- Conclusion
- Case Laws
- Arundhati Roy case [(2002) 3 SCC 343]
- S Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339]
Introduction
The critical analysis of the Prashant Bhushan Contempt case helps us to determine the role of the court while it exercising its Suo Motu power in case of contempt. Also, with the help of this analysis, we can understand that thought the right enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, i.e., right to freedom of speech and expression but this right is not limitless. This right is subject to certain restrictions in respect of protecting the interest of the sovereignty, security, and integrity of India; maintaining the foreign diplomatic relations; to uphold the public policy; in relation to contempt of Court; maintaining peace in the territory of India; etc.
What is Contempt of Court?
According to section 2 (a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 it means civil as well as criminal contempt. Civil contempt is defined under section 2 (b) as disobedience to any judgment, writ, order, direction, or any other process of law which is wilful in nature. Criminal contempt of court is defined under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. As per the section, it is the publication of any matter which scandalize or tend to be scandalized or try to lower the authority of any court in the territory of India, if such publication tries to prejudice or tend to interfere in any judicial proceedings, or if such an act resulted into obstruction or interference in the administration of justice in any other manner.
Punishment for Contempt of Court
Section 12 of the act prescribes the punishment for contempt of court. It provides that a person guilty of contempt of court is liable for simple imprisonment which is extended up to 6 months or with a fine of Rs. Two thousand or with both.
The Supreme Court and high court also have the power to initiate a proceeding by themselves for their contempt against any person. Article 129 of the constitution of India provided the Supreme Court a Suo Motu power to initiate a proceeding against anyone who is responsible for its contempt. Similarly, Article 215 of the Indian Constitution confers the same power as that of the Supreme Court in the High Court.
Summary of the Facts
The petition was filed by Mehak Maheshwari regarding the tweets made by Adv. Prashant Bhushan to bring this to the notice of the court. In the petition, it was prayed that the alleged tweets made by the contemnor Advocate Prashant Bhushan that such tweets are scandalous and try to lower the entire judicial system. But this petition was put on the administrative side of the court because Advocate Maheshwari didn’t obtain the prior permission of the Attorney General of India.
Tweets made by Prashant Bhushan:
“When historians in the 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.” On 27th June 2020.
“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!” on 29th June 2020 with the picture of the CJI S.A. Bobde
Issue Involved:
- Whether the contempt petition is maintainable or not?
- Whether such petition in violation of Article 19 (1) of the constitution of India?
The contention of the parties:
- Prashant Bhushan contended that with respect to his first tweet, it was made to depict anguish against the no physical hearing of the Supreme Court which causes problems and grievance to the people of India as their fundamental rights are unaddressed.
- The respondent also contended that if his tweets amount to contempt of court then it has become a hindrance or hurdle to his fundamental right of right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
- Afterward, he contended that in respect of his second tweet, it is a free opinion made to express that the Supreme Court is considered as the custodian of the constitution but it appears that the last 4 Chief justices have their own contribution in destructing the democracy and hence they failed to maintain the supremacy of the constitution of India.
- Also twitter India Inc. contended that Twitter is a global website where everyone is free to express their thoughts and opinions and under section 2 (w) of the Information technology Act, 2000 the platform act as an intermediary, and hence it is not an author of any tweet made as it doesn’t have any editorial control over any tweet made.
- Also, Twitter Inc. stated that after the order passed on 22nd July 2020 Twitter Inc. not only blocked access to the concerned tweets also disabled them.
Judgment
The court held that the first part of the tweet passed on 29th June 2020, i.e., “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet” is a statement passed on CJI in his personal capacity and hence cannot be treated as contempt of court but on the other hand, the latter part of the tweet, i.e. “at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!” is a comment on the administrative and judicial power of the court as everyone knows due to the sudden outbreak of Covid’ 19 Pandemic the entire judicial system need to stop working in the physical mode in order to prevent massive gatherings in the court so that the situation can be controlled which is worsening day by day. Also, from the immediate effect when the court stopped working in the physical mode start working in the virtual mode.
The court also stated the ruling passed in the Arundhati Roy case [(2002) 3 SCC 343] it was held that if a fair criticism is made in a good faith for the public interest against the conduct of a judge or any judicial institution and their functioning will not amount to a criticism. And for this purpose court must take all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the intention behind such comment and the knowledge of the commentator in such field if the court is satisfied that such a comment is made in good faith and in the interest of the public then it will not amount contempt of court but if the situation is vice versa then the court can take the action against such person under the contempt of Court Act, 1971.
In respect of the tweet made on 27th June 2020, Prashant Bhushan had made a direct criticism against the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justice of India (both the present and the past judges). Hence, by giving a wide view to his tweet court opined that his tweet is not made in a good faith as he is acting irresponsibly though he is also a lawyer and very well aware of everything. Thus, his tweet is not treated as a fair criticism and it is not protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. And for this observation court also give the reference of the case Re: S Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339].
Critical Analysis
In this judgment, the expression “scandalizing the court” has not been defined. Also, in this judgment, it was held that if the criticism is done in good faith it doesn’t amount to contempt but the term “good faith” has not been defined by the court. When Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad commented that the court didn’t take the cognizance, then it was taken as a personal opinion. Also, when the late minister Arun Jaitely said there are two kinds of judges the one who knows the law and the one who knows the law minister is also not taken as a contempt of court.
Conclusion
The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Part III of the constitution of India. And there is a need to make a balance between the fundamental right and the court’s power to take action for its criticism. It is the duty of the court to specify that when criticism or a comment amount to criticism and when it is protected under Article 19 of the Indian constitution.