IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 14-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.
(Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020)
AUGUST 14, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, B. R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
Criminal Contempt – Suo Motu contempt proceedings by
Supreme Court – Against Contemnor No. 1 (an Advocate) on the
basis of two tweets posted by him on Twitter and also against
Contemnor No. 2 the Twitter website – Held: A citizen, while
exercising his right u/Art. 19(1) of the Constitution, is entitled to
make a fair criticism of a Judge, Judiciary and its functioning –
But, if while exercising such right one exceeds the limit and tends to
scandalize the judges and the institution of administration of Justice
tends to undermine the dignity and authority of the Court and tends
to shake the public confidence in the judicial institutions, the same
would come within ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ – However, when a
statement is made against a judge as an individual, the contempt
jurisdiction would not be available – The tweets in question, by
Contemnor No. 1 which are based on distorted facts cannot be said
to be fair criticism made bona fide in public interest – They have the
tendency to shake the confidence of the Public at large in the
institution of judiciary and the institution of Chief Justice of India
and undermining the dignity and authority of the administration of
Justice and hence amount to committing of ‘criminal contempt’ –
The Court should be magnanimous when there is criticism of Judges
and/ or of the institution of administration of justice – But
magnanimity cannot BE extended, to such an extent which may
amount to weakness in dealing with malicious, scurrilous, calculated
attack on the foundation of the institution of the judiciary and
thereby damaging very foundation of the democracy – Contemnor
No. 1 is held guilty of criminal contempt – Contemnor No. 2 is
discharged – Constitution of India – Arts. 19(1) and 129.
Suo motu contempt proceeding – By Supreme Court – A petition
seeking initiation of contempt proceedings filed before Supreme
Court without seeking consent of Attorney General – The Court
took suo motu cognizance of the matter – Whether the proceedings
443
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 443
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
can be treated  suo motu – Held: The power of Supreme Court for
initiating contempt proceedings is derived from Art. 129 of the
Constitution – Such power is not limited by provisions of Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 – For suo motu proceedings, there is no
requirement for taking consent of Attorney General – The only
requirement is that, the procedure followed is required to be just
and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Constitution of India – Art. 129 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.
15.
Holding Contemnor No. 1 guilty of Contempt of Court, the
Court
HELD: 1. The source of power of Supreme Court for
proceeding for an action of contempt is under Article 129 of the
Constitution of India. Power of this Court to initiate contempt is
not in any manner limited by the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. The Court is vested with the constitutional
powers to deal with the contempt and Section 15 of the Act is not
the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only
provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated.
Insofar as suo motu petitions are concerned, the Court can very
well initiate the proceedings suo motu on the basis of information
received by it. The only requirement is that the procedure as
prescribed in the judgment of *P.N. Duda case has to be followed.
In the present case, the same has undoubtedly been followed.
So far as the suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no
requirement for taking consent of anybody, including the Attorney
General because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to
issue notice for contempt. Once the Court takes  cognizance,
the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor. The
only requirement is that, the procedure followed is required to
be just and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. In the present case, the notice issued to the alleged
contemnors clearly mentions the tweets on the basis of which
the Court is proceeding suo motu. The alleged contemnor No.1
has also clearly understood the basis on which the Court is
proceeding against him, as is evident from the elaborate affidavit-
in-reply filed by him. [Para 18][476-A-E]
Re: Vijay Kurle &

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.