Supreme Tolerance & Least Protectionism by Pavithran
There are two cases of Contempt of Apex Court against Prashant Bhushan waiting for their verdicts.
First Case of Contempt of Supreme Court was initiated against Prashant Bhushan in 2009 due to his interview published in Tehelka magazine. In that interview, he said eight of the last 16 Chief Justice of India were corrupt and had also made serious accusations against Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia saying Kapadia heard a case involving Sterlite Company, while he held shares in the company.
It is not corruption, if one invests in shares of any company and for that, it is wrong to attribute motives and prejudices if the person holding some shares is hearing a case of that company. But we cannot expect anything better from Sick Mind and Jaundiced Eyes of person like Prashant Bhushan who will later plead that ‘‘Corruption’ was used in the interview in a wide sense to mean “lack of propriety” and not to mean the judiciary as financially corrupt.”
During the hearing, Prashant Bhushan's father and former Union Law Minster Shanti Bhushan sought to implead himself as a party saying he has "evidence" to back his son's allegation. Shanti Bhushan filed a detailed affidavit in a sealed envelope substantiating the charges leveled by his son.
The case was still being heard, it was last heard in 2012. Now, the Supreme Court had taken up the case after the lapse of 8 years – perhaps due to its fresh recent July 21st 2020 suo moto contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his two tweets – on 27th and 29th June 2020.
When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last 4 Chief Justice of India.
2. Second Tweet of 29th June 2020:
Chief Justice of India a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice.
Referring to Bhushan’s Tweet of 29th June 2020, it emerged that Chief Justice of India SA Bobde who was spotted with a Harley Davidson in Nagpur, was not riding the bike but just sitting on it allowing photos to be taken. The CJI had participated in a tree plantation function there and an automobile dealer sent the bike to him so that he can have a feel of it.
Apart from the Supreme Court’s suo motu contempt notices to Bhushan and Twitter Inc, an advocate Mahek Maheshwari had also filed a petition seeking contempt action on the two. Further a group of 131 eminent persons have called upon the SC for dropping case against Prashant Bhushan"in the interest of justice and fairness and to maintain dignity of the Supreme Court".
Veteran Journalists N. Ram and Arun Shourie along with Bhushan had also filed a separate writ petition challenging the supreme court’s criminal contempt for ‘scandalising the court’ as an incurable vague ground to initiate contempt in a democracy, as it may affect the rights to dissent and free speech.
Twitter Inc. informed the court that a tweet is deleted only after a Court order and clarified that ‘withholding tweets’ did not imply ‘deletion of tweets’. The supreme court took suo motu against Bhushan, as his tweets proved his reckless behavior on social media. The Court had further observed that the tweets undermined the dignity of the Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice in the public eye.
Bhushan had taken the following stand:
In Tehelka Interview, he explained that interview was not meant to hurt judges’ families or tarnish the judiciary. He refused to apologize, but, ready to regret. He agreed to issue a statement clarifying that the word corruption was used in the interview in a wide sense to mean lack of propriety and he did not intend to mean the judiciary was financially corrupt. He said: “If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same.”
Bhushan’s line of argument was that his comments however harsh they may be are criticisms only which need not be taken as contempt by scandalizing the court. He further opined that an expression of an opinion or bonafide anguish, however unpalatable or outspoken, does not amount to contempt.
The court is also inclined to bring the matter to an end when it observed that there is a thin line between free speech and contempt and that the issue now is how to save the system’s grace and bring the matter to an end as well.
The contempt of court cases against Prashant Bhushan have set off a debate over freedom of expression as a fundamental right of an individual versus freedom of judiciary to maintain its credibility in larger public interest. Both the freedom of speech and the contempt of court laws flow from the Constitution. Just as the right to freedom of speech cannot be unbridled, the courts cannot have unfettered power exercised through the contempt of court law.
The reason why the concept of contempt exists is to insulate the institution from unfair attacks and overt threats to judges and also to prevent a sudden fall in the judiciary’s reputation in the public eye. However, it has been recognized by jurists that each time the offence of ‘scandalizing’ the court or lowering the court’s authority is involved, some tend to believe that the court has something to hide. Hence, it is necessary to be impartial so that the blaze of glory around judges would stay undiminished.
However contempt doctrine fell into disuse, and England abolished the offence of ‘scandalizing the court’ in 2013. Now accountability rather than contempt of court with allegations to be scotched by impartial probe rather than threats of contempt action seem to rule in the corridor of courts – transparency all through.
V. R. Krishna Iyer: Contempt law, regardless of public good, may unwittingly trample upon civil liberties. It is for us to determine what is the extent of such trampling we are willing to bear.
On the face of it, a law for criminal contempt is completely asynchronous with our democratic system which recognizes freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right.
In 1980 Spycatcher judgement, the Daily Mirror published an upside down photograph of the Law Lords while reporting the judgement with the caption “You Old Fools”, British court did not drag the mirror to court with contempt of court. Lord Templeton – one of judges on the bench – remarked: “I cannot deny that I am old; it is the truth. Whether I am a fool or not is a matter of perception of some one else. There is no need to invoke the powers of contempt.”
In 2016, Daily Mirror once again published a photo of 3 judges who issued the Brexit ruling with the caption “Enemies of the People” – no contempt proceeding was contemplated.
Coming to the main issue, Bhushan’s pasts are full of dramatic and sensational actions and utterances to get media attention. He boasts himself as an activist par excellence, but, alas! lacks honesty and sincerity.
Let me quote one more tweet of Bhushan:
Bhushan had tweeted in response to a photograph of Union information minister Prakash Javadekar watching Ramayana.
“As crores starve & walk hundreds of miles home due to forced lockdown, our heartless ministers celebrate consuming & feeding the opium of Ramayana & Mahabharata to the people.”
To equate Ramayana and Mahabharata to OPIUM is most horrible statement coming from a senior Supreme Court Advocate!
One can take shelter under the freedom speech and expression, but, it had hurt the sentiments of crores of Hindus. His so called freedom will stop with criticism of Hinduism and its epics – but the fear of retaliation will make him deaf and dumb when it comes to criticism of other religions and their epics and scriptures. He is undoubtedly a hypocrite of first order and very much anti-national.
The Supreme Court needs to come out of its mind set of protectionism and also extends its tolerance level to Himalayan height when it comes to initiate the criminal contempt for scandalizing court in the rarest of rare case. Further, its suo moto proceedings should be resorted to sparingly and diligently so that its action will be effective and have a telling effect on all creating a sense of respect and repute.
Step backward by the Apex Court is not to be considered a set back as revealed by the quote below:
“When you are standing at the edge of a cliff, progress is a step backwards.”
Let Supreme Court be Supreme in its Tolerance Level, but, be above Corruption and be true to the Law and Constitution.
SATYAMEVA JAYATHE.
Comments