Case: In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2020)
Parties: Petitioner: Supreme Court of India (suo moto proceedings)
Respondents: Prashant Bhushan (Advocate) and Twitter, Inc.
Case Type: Suo Moto Criminal Proceeding
Bench: B.R. Gavai J, Krishna Murari J, Arun Mishra J
Counsel:
- Petitioner: Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Pranav Sachdeva and Ms. Neha Rathi
- Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Sh. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Sh. Akash Nagar & Ms. Pallavi
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 663
Final Judgment Date: August 31, 2020
FACTS OF THE CASE
Introduction to the case:
- Supreme Court of India suo motu cognisance was taken for two tweets put by influential barrister and activist Prashant Bhushan, which called up the contempt proceedings.
- The argument raised was that these have sullied the reputation and prestige of the judiciary by scandalising it.
Tweet 1 June 27, 2020:
- Prashant Bhushan had accused Chief Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde of clicking a photograph riding a motorbike without wearing a mask or helmet in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Bhushan said that the intent of the Chief Justice was wrong because the judiciary had been shut virtually in the lockdown.
Tweet 2, June 29, 2020:
- Bhushan, in his second tweet, accused the last four CJIs of “destruction of democracy in India”.
- The four CJIs have been blamed for democratic downfalls of the country, as can be seen from the second tweet.
Judicial Response:
- It brought on its own, for contempt of court proceedings, Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that, talks of acts which scandalise or tend to scandalise the authority of the court,
- It was no personal grievance. It had attacked an institution and thus would nibble away at public morale in the administration of justice.
Defence of Prashant Bhushan
- Bhushan argued that his post-exercise was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of constitutional freedom to speak freely.
- A true manifestation of the role and conduct of the judiciary in a democratic social structure with no malice but in good intent or bona.
Conviction on Contempt:
- Aug. 14, 2020: The Supreme Court concluded Bhushan’s remarks that posts were scandalous of the judiciary, criminal contempt
- August 31, 2020: A paltry fine of ₹ 1 (one rupee) to him.
Threatened that he was given to understand that, for defaulting, the case is taken to a ‘default stage’ and ‘then lodged in jail, within three months’. - Three-year debarment of law practice
Importance of the case,
- Balancing free speech about the dignity of judicial service: The case brought into National discourse the issue.
- It is the conflict between the necessity of the judiciary to continue to be legitimate and authoritative and the necessity of the judiciary to be responsible in a democratic polity.
ISSUE RAISED
The following were the Supreme Court’s main concerns:
- Whether tweets by Prashant Bhushan constituted “reasonable criticism” made in good faith to bring an improvement for the benefit of the public within the meaning of Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
- Whether Bhushan’s tweets were contemptuous under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether Twitter, the middleman, is to be held accountable for contempt.
CONTENTION
The contentions from Advocate Prashant Bhushan-
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution that shields freedom of speech was invoked by Prashant Bhushan for the defence of his tweets.
- He held that his tweets expressed personal opinions to provoke public debate regarding the important role the judiciary plays in a democratic order.
- He said he never intended his criticism as an attack on the legitimacy and authority of the judiciary.
- Bhushan emphasized that what he was saying was in response to what people were concerned about, whether it was that the court was inaccessible during COVID-19 or whether it must protect democratic norms.
- He said instead of bringing down the prestige of the judiciary, his words aimed to fortify it.
- He explained that his statements were true or based on reasonable opinions, made in the public interest and good faith, and hence were protected under the defence of truth under the Contempt of Courts Act.
- Bhushan emphasized that his statement was part of a larger process of saving democratic values and institutional accountability rather than a direct attack on the judiciary.
RATIONALE OF LAW
Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India, 2020, was one of those cases which had been filed to answer how a balance between shielding the authority and dignity of the judiciary and the rights of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution are maintained. The lawsuit cropped out in two tweets written by Prashant Bhushan. These were construed as scandalising the judicial system and reducing public confidence in the integrity of the judicial profession. Supreme Court, through suo motu contempt proceedings, tried to regain its status as a defender of judicial independence and institutional dignity. It highlighted how criticism, especially when given frivolously, can damage the status of the judiciary in a democratic state.
Bhushan, on the other hand, justified his views as being genuine expressions of concern for judicial accountability and the rule of law. He asserted his right to free speech and constructive criticism. The Court needed to analyse these competing interests, which included preventing the court from becoming scandalised and upholding the democratic value of dissent, among other things. The court’s judgment portrayed the fact that freedom of speech is one of the foundations of any democratic regime, which is not a right entirely and thus should be acted upon responsibly when using such privileges regarding institutions of the utmost value for democratic government.
The explanation set out above makes clear the dual obligation carried by the judiciary, both to preserve the faith of the public and to maintain its independence, with the facility also to meet criticism, which is fair and reasonable, so that there should be openness and accountability. These competing demands have been thrown into sharp relief by this judgment. This is particularly so in the digital age, as social media amplifies the reach and effect of individual views. The Court’s decision to symbolically punish Bhushan with a nominal fine was an attempt to protect judicial dignity without the severity of repercussions that were thought unnecessary. This has opened the broader debate about changing contempt rules to bring them into step with the increasing democratic norms.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The case brought up important issues about the limits of free speech and the right to criticise public institutions, especially the court. Critics contended that the court’s judgment to hold Bhushan in contempt was illegal, mainly because it infringed on Bhushan’s fundamental right to free speech. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 seems very vague, particularly when it speaks of a section that labels any act as “scandalising the court,” leaving enough room for arbitrary notions that may be foisted on critics of the legal system. Additionally, it was also perceived that the ruling would scare people off because activists would be so fearful of coming forward with legitimate issues because of the threat of prosecution. This might, therefore, jeopardise the important debates over judicial responsibility, which are necessary for a democracy to function. Furthermore, some people felt that the Court had overreached itself in initiating contempt proceedings suo motu, particularly as Bhushan’s remarks specifically targeted judges rather than the organisation as a whole. Critics argued that the appropriate balance was on the right of free speech and judicial authority, as the punishment included a fine and jail time, which appeared excessive given the harm the tweets were thought to have caused.
INFERENCE
The case of In re Prashant Bhushan shows the hard balancing act to be struck in ensuring the integrity of the legal system against its defence of the liberties of free speech. By highlighting this as a way of safeguarding the judiciary and productive public discourse and yet demonstrating the difficulty in bringing a line between acceptable criticism and contempt of court, it underlines the strong need for an honest and transparent legal system. Citizens should be able to responsibly participate in open conversations concerning public institutions, according to the case, which calls into question the function of public discourse and accountability in democracies. Furthermore, it emphasises how legal standards are dynamic, especially in light of social media’s influence on public opinion. The decision highlights the necessity for an open and accountable legal system as well as the conflict between institutional dignity and individual rights. In particular, it urges that the right to criticise institutions be protected and that the Contempt of Courts Act be re-examined to better conform to democratic ideals. The ruling may deter criticism and action out of concern for potential legal repercussions, which has wider ramifications for civil society and emphasises the need for judicial reforms to better balance free speech and accountability. In the end, the case is a reminder of the necessity of a legal system that recognises the vital role of dissent in a robust democracy, as well as the need for respect for judicial authority.
NIKITA RAI
GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY