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

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 31-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.
(Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020)
AUGUST 31, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, B. R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Criminal Contempt of Court – In suo
motu proceedings, Contemnor (an advocate) held guilty by Supreme
Court – Court granted time to Contemnor to make unconditional
apology, if he so desired – Contemnor filed supplementary statement
reiterating that his statements in twitter were bonafide and pleaded
truth as valid defence – Held: The twin requirement for considering
the truth as valid defence, as per s. 13 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, is that such defence is in public interest and the request for
invoking such defence is bona fide – In the facts of the case, the
defence taken cannot be said to be either in public interest or
bonafide, rather the Contemnor has indulged in making reckless
allegations further aggravating the contempt – Even after conviction
order, no remorse expressed nor apology submitted – A simple
warning is not going to suffice in the present case – Duly balancing
the factors as to the offender, offence and convicting judgment and
the defence taken and in view of conduct of the contemnor, showing
magnanimity, the Court, instead of imposing severe punishment,
sentenced the contemnor with a nominal fine of Rs. 1/- – On default
the Contemnor to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3
months and further be debarred from participating in Supreme Court
for a period of 3 years.
Judiciary – Though a fair criticism of judgment is permissible
in law, a person cannot exceed the right u/Art.19(1)(a) to scandalize
the institution – Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a).
Judiciary – If a scathing attack is made on the judges, it
would become difficult for them to work fearlessly and with the
objectivity of approach to the issues – The judgment can be criticized
– However, motives to the Judges need not be attributed, as it brings
administration of justice into disrepute – Administration of Justice.
Advocates / Legal Profession – Lawyers, as a class, are looked
by the public as intelligentsia.
Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a) – Free Speech is part of
Art. 19(1)(a) – However, it cannot be said that while exercising
power u/Art.129, the Court is interfering with the rights under
Art.19(1)(a) – Supreme Court being a court of record can punish
510
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 510
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
for contempt – Free Speech is essential to democracy, but it cannot
denigrate one of the institutions of the democracy.
Constitution of India – Art.129 – While exercising powers u/
Art.129, the Court will have to strike a balance between the right u/
Art.19(1)(a) and restrictions under Art.19(2) – Constitution of India
– Art.19(1)(a) and 19(2).
Advocates / Legal Profession – Role and duty of – Held:
Lawyers’ noble profession will lose all its significance and charm
and dignity if the lawyers are permitted to make any malicious,
scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the institution of
which they are part – Lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly
independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the
institution.
Judiciary – Interference with judicial process – Release of
statement to press in advance – Held: In a sub judice matter,
releasing statement to the press in advance is an act of impropriety
and has the effect of interfering with the judicial process and the
fair decision making and is clearly an attempt to coerce the decision
of the Court by the influence of newspaper and media, which cannot
be said to be conducive for fair administration of justice and would
further tantamount to undue interference in the independent judicial
making process which is the very foundation of institution of
administration of justice – Administration of Justice.
Contempt of Court – Criminal contempt – Apology – Held:
The Court has to be satisfied as to the genuineness of the apology
to make an order that contemnor has purged himself of the contempt.
Administration of Justice – It is not expected of a person who
is a part of the system of administration of justice and who owes a
duty to the said system, to make tweets capable of shaking the
confidence of general public and further making wild allegations
in affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the institution.
Rule of Law – Supremacy   of – Strong arm of the law strikes
a blow on him who challenges supremacy  of the rule of law by
fouling it

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