Public Interest Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, held guilty of contempt for his two tweets on Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde and the previous CJIs.
Lately, advocate Mr.Prashant Bhushan found guilty for his tweets referring to former CJI's and Sharad Bobde. The Supreme Court gave a chance to apologize to the Court. But, Mr Bhushan did not apologize in his statement filed. So, the Supreme Court comprises of a three-judge bench(Justices Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai, Krishna Murari) on Monday(31-08-2020) will spell out the sentence on a contempt case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The following timeline will showcase the series of incident happened in this particular case.
“I do not ask for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am here, therefore, to cheerfully submit to any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
The above said by Mahatma Gandhi in his trail and, the same had quoted by Mr Bhushan. On Monday, the Supreme Court imposed Re 1 fine on Prashant Bhushan for committing contempt and said if he does not pay Re 1 by September 15, he will have to undergo 3-month imprisonment and be debarred from practice for 3 years. And Mr Bhushan said, "I reserve my right to file review, propose to pay fine as directed by the Supreme Court." An advocate who handled more than 400PILs has found guilty for his expression and opinion on the functioning of the Supreme Court and the current Chief Justice of India. The court punished him for 'scandalising the court'.
“When there were large scale protests after a supreme court judgement disturbing reservation laws, was that contempt?” ― Sitaram Yechury.
The court also mentioned in the Bhushan's contempt case that it shakes the public confidence on the Supreme Court. Is it? We live in an era where a great deal of extreme abuse of the Indian judiciary system, the Supreme Court and the judges exist, much of it in Social media platform. The extremity of the language does not appear to be doing any harm, as most of the readers are not taking it seriously in their day to day lives.
Isn't every citizen of India allowed freedom of speech and expression? A declaration attributed to Voltaire: “I despise what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” encapsulates the essence of the protection of free speech. This was quoted in the Supreme Court case. Protection of freedom of speech and expression is founded on the belief that speech is worth defending irrespective of who is approving it or feel despise about it. "Judiciary is the centre pillar of Indian democracy. An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand." The statement was given while the Supreme Court found Mr Bhushan guilty. Freedom to air one’s view is the heart of any democratic institution and any attempt to strangulate, suffocate this right would be the end of the democracy and, it would also end in dictatorship.
“We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it”― Lord Denning
The Contempt Law had originated from The English Law of contempt. It is in the substance of England. In the Daily Mirror newspaper of UK, they have published an upside-down picture of three law lords who have given judgement in the Spycatcher case in 1987. The newspaper used the phrase 'You old fools', referring the judges. Lord Templeman, one of the law lords, refused to initiate contempt proceedings against the newspaper. Lord Templeman said, "Referring me old is the fact and calling him a fool is a matter of perception though he believes he was not one." British Judge Denning in the judgement of Regina versus Metropolitan in 1969 observed that even though the court has the jurisdiction for contempt, they shall never use it. Subsequently, in December 2012 the House of Lords of the United Kindom accepted to the abolition of scandalising the court as an amendment. As differentiation between criticism and contempt could not be drawn. 'Scandalizing the court' it has long since fallen into disuse in most of the civilized countries around the world, but not in India.
“Frequent or indiscriminate use of contempt power by judges often affect rather than sustain their dignity or status”― Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar.
I have used this term 'scandalising the court' repeatedly in my writing. Now, what is scandalising the court? It is a form of contempt of court, consisting of the publication of statements attacking the judiciary and likely to impair the administration of justice. Our Supreme Court is the highest court of India has a different opinion on these matters. The definition of 'Scandalising the court' is not precise in these matters. Mr P. Shivshankar, a cabinet minister of the Government of India, was exonerated though he had compared the judges of the Supreme Court to 'anti-social elements, foreign exchange violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries who have found their haven in the Supreme Court.' In 1998, the Supreme Court, for the contempt case raised by the then practising Supreme Court advocate P. N. Duda against Mr P. Shivshankar said that it should be read in a proper perspective and dismissed the case. Meghalaya High Court found Shillong Times editor Patricia Mukhim and, the publisher found guilty of criminal contempt for their magazine caption, ‘When judges judge for themselves.' The court fined them with two lakhs each. Failure to deposit the amount would result in imprisonment of six months besides a ban on the paper. In a fillip to free speech, the Supreme Court on 15th March 2019, stayed the conviction and punishment. The Supreme Court itself confused which scandalising the court or lowering the dignity of the court in these cases. They are infused with a lot of meaning and substance that requires deep down reflection. Moreover, a bonafide criticism must be welcome by the judges to know its functioning. Either the entire 'Scandalisisng the court' must be abolished or must be modified as it questions the very fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The dignity of the court arises from the heart and mind of the people. #iscrimenewnormal!
Civil Contempt:
It is willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Criminal Contempt:
1. Scandalises the Court, or
2. Prejudices any judicial proceeding, or
3. Interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner. Scandalising the Court broadly refers to statements or publications which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Defences for Criminal Contempt:
Contempts not punishable in certain cases:
1. No court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice;
2. The court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.
Punishment:
Simple imprisonment which may extend up to six months, or fine up to two thousand rupees or both.
Constitutional Provisions on Contempt of Court:
The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including, the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament, the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order to secure the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including, the power to punish for contempt of itself.