Case
In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2020)
Case type
Suo Motu criminal contempt proceeding
Bench
B.R. Gavai J., Krishna Murari J., Arun Mishra J.
Citation
SCM (CRL.)No. 000001 -/2020
Facts
- Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhusan and Twitter Inc. got sued in a contempt petition filed by Adv. Maheshwari dated July 21st, 2020.
- The following petition was in regard with two tweets posted by Mr. Prashant Bhusan on June 27th, 2020 and June 29th, 2020 respectively on twitter.
- The tweets posted were :
27th 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, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJI’s.”[i]
29th June, 2020-: “CJl rides 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!”[ii]
- Court observing that the petition filed by Adv. Maheshwari lacks prior sanction of the Advocate General, took a Suo Motu cognizance of the tweets by Mr. Prashant Bhusan.
- A bench comprising Justice Gavai, Justice Murari and Justice Mishra, prima facie took the case under their learned guidance, issuing notice to both respondents for their reply on August 5th, 2020, in regards with causing disturbance of administration of justice and undermining dignity and authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether such tweets by the respondent (Mr. Bhusan) contemplates to contempt of court or is respondents bona fide belief criticism in regards with his fundamental right of speech.
- Whether Twitter Inc. Act as an ‘intermediary’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000?
Respondent arguments
- The respondent Mr. Bhusan argued that tweet dated July 26th, 2020, is a bona fide criticism according to his belief’s or views in regards with the failure of proper democracy from past few years. Further, he has no intention of disrespecting the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and his views were in regards with the present CJI and past four CJI’s in their individual capacity. Further, the respondent has no idea of interfering in the course of judgement.
- Further, in regards with tweet dated July 29th, 2020, respondent argues that the virtual functioning of court in regards with the COVID-19 anguished him on behalf of people who are facing recursions and delay in attaining justice. With such views in mind the CJI who has pushed the non-physical functioning of courts is seen riding motorcycle without mask, sparked his views regarding incongruence of the acts of CJI.
- The respondent (Twitter Inc.), argued and stated that it being a global site is an ‘intermediary’ under Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 200. Further, it states that Twitter not being an originator of tweets and lacking editorial control doesn’t have any authority over the tweet posted. Although, it has blocked and disabled the tweets in question as a preventive measures with good faith.
Petitioner’s Argument
The respondents, the Supreme Court of India and the Attorney General of India, argued that the tweets made by Prashant Bhushan were scandalous and lowered the authority of the judiciary. They contended that the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and that reasonable restrictions can be placed on it in the interests of maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judiciary. They also argued that the tweets were not made in good faith but were malicious and intended to bring disrepute to the institution of the judiciary. They further argued that the contempt law should be broadly construed to ensure that the authority of the judiciary is not undermined by criticism.
Judgement
- The apex court accepted the arguments laid down in the affidavit by the Twitter Inc. with it being and intermediary. Thus, discharging it from all accusations as it took action to correct the mistake with whatever authority it upholds by blocking and disabling controversial tweets.
- In regards with Mr. Bhusan , the court first rejected all the arguments stated by him on August 14th, 2020 stating that the tweets were based on “distorted facts and amount to criminal contempt”[iii]. Holding him guilty for contempt of court.
- August 20th, 2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court imparted some time to Mr. Bhusan for reconsidering his argument and submitting “an unconditional apology” in accordance with his own will.
- On August 24th, 2020, Mr. Bhusan submitted another affidavit stating that “tendering an insincere apology would in fact constitute to contempt of court”, further, stating that “I will accept no mercy and will cheerfully submit to whatever punishment court will imposed on him”.
- The SC criticized Mr. Bhusan acts stating that, “His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs”.[iv]
- The court further said that after fine of Rs.1 that “the court was not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. At the same time, we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence.”[v]
Conclusion
In the following case, the mere views of respondent over the CJI as an individual couldn’t subject to contempt of court as the CJI as a single person do not constitute a whole court and law. Under section 2 ( c ) of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971, the definition of contempt includes publications which scandalize the authority of court or prejudice or interference with court proceeding or obstructing administration of justice is very different from a mere point of view of an individual. But, the act of refusal of respondent with regards to chances and views of courts is somewhat arrogant. And the fine imposed is somewhat a kind lenient behavior but a strong step in order to show that no wrong will go unnoticed in eyes of law, yet preventing the question over the basic fundamental right of speech.
[i] https://m.thewire.in/article/law/prashant-bhushan-supreme-court-contempt-re-1-fine
[ii] https://m.thewire.in/article/law/prashant-bhushan-supreme-court-contempt-re-1-fine
[iii]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14323/14323_2020_33_1504_23746_Judgement_31-Aug-2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAgfv2tor-AhWARmwGHbgmAVkQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0lh08ZGNQbrxzH6WEvPm2X
[iv] https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/advocate-bhushans-conduct-reflects-ego-zero-remorse-sc-says-during-sentencing/amp_articleshow/77850325.cms
[v] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/contempt-of-court-prashant-bhushan-supreme-court-review-petition-right-of-appeal-intra-court-appeal-167265&ved=2ahUKEwiFrLrMyov-AhUFAd4KHSVoDaMQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DzhcJ9ON0ifKHskQSyEQ4
This article is written by Ananya Singh, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
