Case: In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2020)
Case Type: Suo Moto Criminal Proceeding
Bench: B.R. Gavai J, Krishna Murari J, Arun Mishra J
Citation: SCM (CRL.) No.000001 -/2020
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case started when Prashant Bhushan made two tweets in June 2020 that were critical of the Indian judiciary. In one tweet, he commented on a photograph of the Chief Justice of India, Sharad Arvind Bobde, riding a motorcycle without a helmet during the COVID-19 lockdown. In the other tweet, he criticized the role of the judiciary in the past six years, particularly with regard to its handling of political matters. In response to these tweets, an advocate named Mahek Maheshwari filed a contempt petition against Prashant Bhushan. The Supreme Court of India took suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of the matter and initiated contempt of court proceedings against Prashant Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan was charged with criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The charges alleged that his tweets had scandalized the court and undermined the authority of the judiciary. Prashant Bhushan defended his tweets as an exercise of his right to free speech and as legitimate criticism of the judiciary’s actions and inactions. He argued that his tweets were not intended to scandalize the court but to express genuine concerns about the state of the judiciary. The case sparked a nationwide debate on the balance between freedom of speech and the need to protect the reputation and authority of the judiciary. Many legal experts, activists, and politicians expressed their views on the matter. The Supreme Court conducted hearings in the case, and on August 14, 2020, it found Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court. The court held that his tweets were derogatory and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. On August 31, 2020, the Supreme Court sentenced Prashant Bhushan to a fine of one rupee (INR 1) as a symbolic punishment. He was also given the option to undergo a three-month jail term and suspension from practicing law for three years if he failed to pay the fine. Prashant Bhushan chose to pay the fine, and the case concluded with the payment of the fine. However, the case continued to have a significant impact on discussions surrounding freedom of expression and contempt of court laws in India.[1]
ISSUE RAISED
- The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not Prashant Bhushan’s tweets qualified as a “fair criticism” of the system made in good faith for the sake of the greater good under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.[2]
- Whether Prashant Bhushan’s tweets fall under clause 2(c)(i) of the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act as being in contempt of court?[3]
- Whether the intermediary i.e., Twitter in the instant case, be held liable for contempt as per the facts of the case?[4]
CONTENTION
The contention made by both accused contemnors is as follows:
The contention made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan-
- Referring to his initial tweet from June 27, 2020, he insisted that he only sent it to vent his anger at the existing state of affairs, which included the Supreme Court being shut down for around three months, preventing many important topics from being considered. The court declined to address the problems relating to citizens’ Fundamental Rights. This made it more difficult to deliver justice to the populace.
- Regarding his second tweet from June 29, 2020, he added that his goal in posting the image of Justice S.A. Bobde riding a bike was to draw attention to the paradox of the situation: while he was conducting court proceedings virtually out of concern for the deadly Corona Virus, he was also stepping outside and riding a bike worth 50 lakhs in a public setting, and that too without any hesitancy.
- He said that both of his tweets are protected by his right to free speech. He shouldn’t be prosecuted with contempt of court since doing so would be against his Article 19 fundamental rights.[5]
RATIONALE OF LAW
In layman’s words, contempt of court is an act that stems from any disparaging or slanderous remarks made by a person that seeks to reduce the authority of the judicial institution. The violation is justified by the likelihood that such a remark will undermine the judges’ reputations as well as the authority and dignity of the legal system, potentially diminishing their standing in the eyes of the general public.
The English monarchical legal system, in which the court system was merely a controlling instrument in the hands of the monarch, is where India’s contempt legislation finds its roots. The judges who served as his agents used to receive the king’s judicial authority. Any assault on the judiciary’s authority amounted to a criticism of the king’s wisdom. The important decision R. v. Almon, which reaffirmed that any slanderous conduct directed against the judicial institutions would be tantamount to attacking the king’s honor and power, legitimized this idea. Over time, it became understood that any action that went against the judges’ instructions and guidelines and prevented their execution was punished.
In Articles 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court are given the authority to penalize for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, of 1971, which was created in response to the Sanyal Committee’s recommendations and serves as the basic legislative framework for contempt of courts in India, supplements these articles. The law’s Section 2 distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt, with S.2(b) addressing civil contempt and S.2(c) addressing criminal contempt. Wilful defiance of a court’s ruling, decree, or order is referred to as civil contempt. Criminal contempt addresses any behavior that defames the court, affects any legal proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
The enormous and general character of contempt of court, according to Joseph Moscovitz, is like a “Proteus of the legal world” that may take on countless shapes. Due to the ambiguity of the phrase “scandalizes the court” has been the focus of countless legal disputes. In a number of cases, such as E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar and Re: Arundhati Roy v. Unknown, judges have used their judicial discretion to punish a person even though the alleged act did not meet the requirements for it to be regarded as an act of contempt under the Act. This not only results in arbitrary and unrestrained restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, but it also damages public perception of the judiciary, which was not necessarily the case when the court first took cognizance of the situation.[6]
DEFECTS OF LAW
Regarding the boundaries of free speech and the ability to criticize public institutions, especially the court, the case posed significant issues. The court’s decision to find Bhushan in contempt was criticized as having a legal flaw since it could have interfered with his basic right to free speech. They argued that people should be free to express their views on government institutions’ operations without worrying about legal ramifications. The case ultimately triggered a substantial discussion on how to balance free speech and judicial disobedience in India, underlining the necessity for a strong and complex legal system that upholds both individual liberties and the sacredness of judicial institutions.
INFERENCE
The “In re Prashant Bhushan” case serves as a noteworthy and thought-provoking illustration of the intricate interaction between the need to uphold the integrity and respect for judicial institutions and the need for freedom of expression. The case’s inference highlights the following significant ideas:
- Contempt of court vs. freedom of speech: The case serves as a reminder of the fine line that must be drawn between people’s constitutional right to free speech and the need to stop activities that can erode the legitimacy and authority of the court. It emphasizes the significance of outlining precise parameters and standards for figuring out when criticism turns into contempt of court.
- Importance of Robust Legal Framework: The case highlights the need for a well-defined and robust legal framework to deal with cases of contempt of court. Such a framework should ensure that legitimate criticism and dissent can thrive while also protecting the judiciary from unwarranted attacks that could erode public trust.
- Public Discourse and Accountability: It emphasizes the role of public discourse and accountability in a democratic society. Citizens have a right and a responsibility to engage in open and constructive discussions about the functioning of public institutions, including the judiciary. At the same time, such discussions must be carried out responsibly and within the bounds of the law.
- Evolving Legal Standards: The case also serves as an example of how legal standards change as society does. Legal frameworks must change to address new issues as cultural norms and technology advance, such as how social media affects public discourse and the sharing of information.
Ujjwal Vikash
Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (2020-2023)
[1] Orders of the SC in Prashant Bhushan’s contempt of court case – iPleaders, iPleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/orders-sc-prashant-bhushans-contempt-court-case/#:~:text=Brief%20facts%20of%20the%20case&text=He%20tweeted%20“CJI%20rides%20a,fundamental%20right%20to%20access%20justice.” (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
[2] In Re Prashant Bhushan, Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd. – Global Freedom of Expression, Global Freedom of Expression, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/in-re-prashant-bhushan-twitter-communications-india-pvt-ltd/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
[3] IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN, Law Essentials, https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/in-re-prashant-bhushan?blogcategory=Case+Comments (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
[4] Re: Prashant Bhushan: Contempt Case For Tweets Made Against Hon’ble Chief Justice Of India, Legal Service India – Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12631-re-prashant-bhushan-contempt-case-for-tweets-made-against-hon-ble-chief-justice-of-india.html (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
[5] THE CONTEMPT CASE OF ADVOCATE PRASHANT BHUSHAN – JLRJS, JLRJS, https://jlrjs.com/the-contempt-case-of-advocate-prashant-bhushan/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).
[6] Contempt of Court: Short note on Prashant Bhushan Case | RSRR, RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR), https://rsrr.in/2020/08/16/editors-pick-contempt-of-court/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2023).