EBAD RAIS

16010224142

2016-21

Ethics should not compromised on the ground of liberty and liberty shouldn’t be crumb down
for ethics, for the stable functioning rather maintaining a ‘Society Decorum’.

Senior Advocate Prashant was convicted of contempt by the SC of India on 14 th August,

2020. The case was heard by division bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna
Murari. In Suo Moto Contempt Petition1 that was brought in the eyes of the Court by Mahek
Maheshwari, the Court initiated proceedings against Prashant Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan posted two contemptuous tweets against Judges of the Apex Court. The
tweets in question are:

 “When historians in the future will look back at the last six years to see how
democracy has been destroyed in India without a formal Emergency, they will
particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role
of the last four CJI.”2
 “The CJI rides a Rs. 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP [Bhartiya Janta Party]
leader at Raj Bhawan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he
keeps the SC on lock down mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access
justice.”3

On 31st August, 2020 the Court imposed fine of Rupee 1. The judgement of the Court was
108 pages long and, in the judgement, CJI was equated as a whole of judiciary.

Judgement:

It was contested in the Court that if this matter were to be regarded as a contempt, it would
infringe Right to freedom of speech and expression given under article 19(1)(a) of Indian
Constitution.

1
Prashant Bhushan & ANR. …. Alleged Contemnor(s), Suo Moto Contempt Petition (CRL.) No.1 of 2020
2
www.twitter.in
3
www.twitter.in
It was further contended, that the Chief Justice of India is not the Apex Court. It was
submitted that it was a bona fide criticism of the actions and conduct of the CJI during Court
Vacations and that it does not let down the decorum of the Apex Court .

Court considered the verdict given in Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh4, where the limits of fair and reasonable criticism or whether it is libel or
defamation of the Judge.

In the judgement, Bhushan was not only found guilty of contempt of court but it was also
given that the CJI is the whole of judiciary and is equated with the Supreme Court wherein,
criticism of the CJI is considered as criticism of Court since, the CJI represents the Court.

Therefore, criticism of the CJI is made equivalent to criticism of the administration of justice.

The verdict can be perceived in two different theories.

Wherein, the first one is the judgement of the Court itself where it gives a much higher
pedestal to the CJI, one that is aloof from criticism so as to not interfere with the process of
justice delivery and to ensure fair justice.

The other theory can be how the precedent set by the Court through this case is evading the
general criticism and stifle the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Even though the
penalty imposed on Prashant Bhushan was that of Rs.1 but the precedential status of this
judgement is much more.

4
Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1953 SCR 1169.