On Thursday, Lawyer Prashant Bhushan has been held guilty of contempt for allegedly making tweeting on Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will decide on the sentence on August 20. A three-judge bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari delivered the verdict.
Mr Bhushan in an affidavit on August 3 had said he regretted only a 'part of' what he tweeted and asserted that criticism of the Top Judge 'does not scandalise' the court or lower its authority.
He had commented on a photo of Chief Justice Bobde on a superbike. Mr Bhushan in an affidavit on August 2 said he regretted asking why Justice Bobde was not wearing a helmet, since the bike was on a stand.
In his defense, he submitted:
"At the outset I admit that I did not notice that the bike was on a stand and therefore wearing a helmet was not required. I therefore regret that part of my tweet. However, I stand by the remaining part of what I have stated in my tweet."
The Court discharged Twitter from contempt for publishing Mr Bhushan's tweets, saying it accepts the explanation given by the microblogging website.
The Supreme Court in response said:
"We accept 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 cognisance was taken by this court as it has suspended both the tweets. We, therefore, discharge the notice."
The Court added:
"Bhushan's tweets are based on the distorted facts, amount to committing of criminal contempt. The tweets are not fair criticism of functioning of judiciary made in public interest. The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalise the court, are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing,"
In the judgement delivered, the Constitution Bench held, that a publication which attacks on individual judges or the court as a whole with or without reference to particular case, casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or ability of the judges, would come within the term of scandalizing the Court. It is held, that such a conduct tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts, which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties.
It has been further held, that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively, that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement and it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of justice.
The Top Court cited case of In re Hira Lal Dixit and two others and observed:
"Though the said passage/paragraph begins with a statement, that ‘the public has full and firm faith in the Supreme Court…’ and ends with, ‘but this has so far not made any difference in the firmness and justice of the Hon’ble Judges’, the Court found, that if the statement in the said passage/paragraph was read in entirety and the timing and the manner in which it was published, it was clear, that it was done to affect the minds of the judges and to deflect them from the strict performance of their duties."
The Bench thus concluded that the offending passage and the time and place of its publication certainly tended to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice and was a contempt of Court while rejecting his qualified apology and thus held him gulity.
The judgement has been delivered by bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Krishna Murari on 14-08-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :