July 22, 2020
INTRODUCTION
The 2020 Prashant Bhushan case centred on two tweets that well-known attorney and activist Prashant Bhushan sent and that the Indian Supreme Court deemed to be disrespectful. The case brings to light important questions about the judiciary’s authority, speech rights, and the parameters of contempt of court.
FACTS
An image of Chief Justice of India Bobde riding a motorcycle was included in a tweet on the Chief Justice of India sent out by advocate Prashant Bhushan on June 29, 2020.On July 2, Mahek Maheshwari, through attorney Anuj Saxena, filed a petition against Bhushan and Twitter India, asking the court to start contempt proceedings for the tweet. Maheshwari claimed that the tweet “scandalized the court” and “inspired a feeling of no-confidence” in the independence of the judiciary.
The plea was taken suo moto notice by the Supreme Court on July 21st, after which contempt proceedings were launched against Bhushan and Twitter India for vague tweets that the former had posted on the latter’s platform. A hearing was scheduled for July 22nd.
Two tweets were referenced by the Court in its July order as the foundation for the proceedings. The first was sent on June 27, 2020, and it accused the Supreme Court of “destructing” India’s democracy over the previous six years. The other was the June 29th tweet, which was the focus of Maheshwari’s appeal.The bench adopted the preliminary position that the remarks damaged the reputation of the legal system and had the potential to damage public perception of the Chief Justice and other Court institutions. It requested that Bhushan and Attorney General of India KK Venugopal help the Court in this respect by sending notices to both parties.
Bhushan responded by submitting a writ petition asking the SC to revoke the contempt order that was placed against him. He claimed that because the initial petition had not been approved by the Attorney General as required by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, it was flawed and could not have led to the SC taking suo moto cognizance.
Sr. Adv. Dushyant Dave, representing Bhushan, and Sr. Adv. Sajan Poovayya, representing Twitter India, submitted lengthy arguments before the court on August 5. The Court found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt on August 14. On August 20, the Court was scheduled to hear Bhushan’s sentencing arguments.
Bhushan submitted a request to postpone the sentencing hearing on August 19. Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Rajeev Dhavan spoke before the court on August 20th on sentencing and deferment. It issued a brief directive requesting that Bhushan offer an unqualified apology by August 24. “If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in the highest esteem,” Prashant Bhushan wrote in a supplemental statement he filed on August 24. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Senior Adviser Rajeev Dhavan were heard by the court on August 25. The court postponed making a sentence decision. On August 31, one week later, the Court fined Bhushan INR 1. He must make this payment by September 15, 2020, at the latest. Furthermore, Bhushan would lose his right to practice law for three years and face a three-month jail sentence for noncompliance. Before the deadline, Prashant Bhushan paid the fine. He has submitted a critique of this judgment.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Freedom of speech vs. Contempt of court: Whether Bhushan’s tweets violated the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or were protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which upholds the right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Fair criticism vs. Scandalizing the court: Whether Bhushan’s remarks were legitimate criticism of the court, as allowed in a democracy, or if they amounted to scandalizing the court and undermining public trust in the legal system.
3. Judicial Accountability vs. Judicial Immunity: Judicial insulation from public criticism and the degree to which judges can be held responsible for their public decisions and conduct.
CONTENTION
Petitioner (Supreme court)
Prashant Bhushan’s tweets amounted to “scandalizing the court” and had the potential to erode public trust in the legal system. The remarks were not just critical of the judiciary as an institution, but also an attack on it, particularly coming from a senior lawyer, which might cause the public to lose faith in it. The ability to penalize for contempt is vital to preserving the authority and dignity of the court, both of which are necessary for the rule of law.
Respondent (Prashant Bhushan)
According to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, he was exercising his basic right to freedom of speech and expression when he posted the tweets. It is OK to criticize the judiciary as long as it is done fairly and with good intentions. The remarks were not meant to denigrate or undermine the judiciary; rather, they were meant to draw attention to problems within it. It is improper to employ the contempt of court rule to suppress legitimate criticism, as this is essential to a democracy’s survival.
RATIONALE OF THE COURT
In a ruling on August 14, 2020, the Supreme Court found Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court. The Court’s justification comprised the following: Nature of the Tweets: The Court noted that the tweets were an attack on the judiciary as well as a critique, implying that the CJI was unconcerned with the public’s suffering during the pandemic and that the judiciary had contributed to the erosion of democracy. Possibility to Undermine Public Confidence: The Court stressed how crucial it is to preserve the public’s faith in the legal system. It maintained that claims such to those made by Bhushan would cause people’s confidence in the legal system to decline.
Limitations on the Right to Free Speech: The Court recognized the inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression, but it also pointed out that this right is subject to reasonable limitations, such as those relating to contempt of court. Case Law on Contempt of Court: The ruling cited a number of prior rulings by the Supreme Court, which maintained that the freedom to express criticism does not extend to remarks that cause scandal or undermine the authority of the judicial branch.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- The definition of contempt under the law is sometimes challenged for being overly general and ambiguous. Lack of definitions for terms like “scandalizing the court” might result in erroneous interpretations and even misuse.
- Chilling Effect on Free expression: This case’s application of contempt rules sparked worries about how they would restrict free expression and deter justifiable criticism of the courts.
- Absence of Clear criteria: To guarantee that the law is administered uniformly and equitably, it is necessary to have clearer criteria that differentiate between respectful criticism and disrespectful statements.
- The judiciary’s role as judge of its own cause presents issues with impartiality and conflict of interest when the Supreme Court decides matters involving contempt.
INFERENCE
The Prashant Bhushan case highlights the precarious balance that must be struck between defending the integrity of the legal system and preserving the right to free speech. Protecting the freedom to criticize public institutions, including the judiciary, is just as vital as ensuring that the judiciary is not unnecessarily damaged. The ruling brings up significant issues regarding the boundaries of judicial immunity and the requirement for more precise rules on what behaviour is considered contempt.
The case also emphasizes how the contempt legislation has to be changed to prevent it from being abused to stifle free expression. It is imperative for the judiciary to receive constructive criticism in order to remain accountable to the public and to preserve public trust in its operations.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
- Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India: Allows for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech, including in cases of contempt of court.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Provides the statutory framework for contempt proceedings in India.
- Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines criminal contempt, including the publication of any matter that scandalises or lowers the authority of any court.
- Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Prescribes punishment for contempt of court, including imprisonment and fines.
JUDGEMENT
After being found guilty of contempt of court, a well-known Indian attorney and civil rights activist was asked to pay a symbolic fine of one rupee. Prashant Bhushan, 63, was penalized by the Supreme Court for sending two offensive tweets. Mr. Bhushan was asked by the court to offer an unequivocal apology, but he declined, stating that he stood by his tweets. According to Mr. Bhushan, one’s freedom of speech includes the ability to criticize judges. According to the court, he will get a three-month prison sentence if he doesn’t pay the fine—which is less than Rs1—by September 15th.
Mr. Bhushan stated that he will “respectfully pay the fine,” but he also mentioned that he is still free to contest the ruling and ask for a court review. On August 14, the court declared Mr. Bhushan guilty; but, due to growing pressure, the sentence was postponed. The conviction of Mr. Bhushan was questioned by almost 3,000 retired judges, attorneys, and distinguished citizens, who said that finding him guilty of contempt had a “chilling effect on people expressing critical views on functioning of the top court”. Considering how divisive the case has been among Indians on and off social media, there are a variety of responses to the sentence. Some people applauded the fee as a just punishment, but others claimed that Mr. Bhushan, who faced the prospect of jail time.
SHINJINI BANSAL
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR