J.R. PRASHAR, ADVOCATE AND ORS. versus PRASANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 28-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J.R. PRASHAR, ADVOCATE AND ORS. 
v. 
PRASANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 5, 14, 15 and 23. 
Rules to regulate proceedings/or contempt of the Supreme Court 1975: 
Rules 3, 4 and 5 
Contempt Petition-Allegations-Dharna-Protest against judgment-
Shouting of slogans-Ascribing lack of integrity to Judges-Petition dismissed 
A 
B 
c 
for non-compliance with Rules-Propriety and legality of dharna discussed- D 
Held allegations of shouting slogans cannot be accepted merely on the basis 
of petition-Mere stating that superior courts use power of contempt against 
persons criticising courts-No personal motive ascribed-Held such comments 
are general in nature-But imputing motives to specific court and alleging 
harassment by court prima facie constitutes contempt-Contumacious action 
of contempt taking out of courts-Proceedings to be initiated in such a case- E 
Procedure for. 
Judiciary-Judges-Criticism-Permissibility and extent of 
In this Contempt Petition the Petitioners alleged that the respondents 
led a huge crowd on 30th December, 2000 and held a dharna in front of this F 
Court with a view to protest against the Judgment relating to the building of 
the Dam 1in the Narmada River. It was also alleged that respondents shouted 
abusive slogans against this Court including slogans ascribing lack of integrity 
and dishonesty to the Institution. When the petitioners protested they were 
attacked and assaulted by the respondents and consequently an FIR was also G 
lodged. The respondents filed their separate affidavits in response to the show 
cause notice. 
Respondent No. I asserted that though he supported the cause and had 
espoused it by appearing as counsel before this court yet he did not approve 
of the holding of a dharna. He stated that neither he took part in the dharna H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A nor shouted any slogan against the Court. 
Respondent No. 2 admitted participation in the dharna and also to have 
made speeches and raised slogans but stated that no slogan was raised or 
speech made by her impugning the integrity of the Judges. Justifying the 
dharna as a legitimate form of protest against the judgment she stated in her 
B affidavit that the superior courts have recently shown a disturbing tendency 
to use the power of contempt against persons who have been criticising the 
courts and their judgments and that she will continue to help them raise their 
voices in protest against this system. 
She also contended that as the Contempt Petition was procedurally 
C defective for non-compliance with rules it should not have been accepted by 
the Registry. 
Asserting her right to participate in any peaceful protest Respondent 
No. 3 stated that she had never did cast any aspersions on the court or the 
D integrity of Judges. In her affidavit she not only accused the courts of 
harassing her but also made contumacious remarks that there was a 
disquieting inclination on the part of the Court to silence criticism, muzzle 
dissent as well as to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it. She 
·also contended that she stood by her statements even if it amounted to 
E 
F 
contempt. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: I. The proceedings initiated on the basis of the petition against 
all the three respondents are dismissed. [255-C) 
2. Holding a dharna by itself may not amount to contempt. But if by 
holding a dharna access to the courts is hindered and the officers of court 
and members of the public are not allowed free ingress and egress, or the 
proceedings in court are otherwise disrupted, disturbed or hampered, the 
dharna may amount to contempt because the administration of justice would 
be obstructed. There is no allegation in the petition that the participants in 
G dharna had picketed the gates of this court and prevented lawyers or litigants 
from entering and leaving the Court premises. Nor is it the petitioners' case 
that the dharna disturbed or prevented the courts from functioning. 
[252-F-H) 
3. While holding that a dharna held to protest a decision of a court may 
H not per se amount to contempt, this court must not be understood as 
-
J.R. PRASHAR v. PRASHANT BHUSHAN 
241 
approving the holding of a dharna before the court. On the other hand it is A 
deprecated and must be discouraged, otherwise every disgruntled litigant 
could adopt this method of ventilating

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