FACTS

 On the 27th and 29th of June, 2020, advocate Prashant Bhushan posted the following two
tweets on Twitter.
o “At Raj Bhavan Nagpur, the CJI rides a 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader
without a mask or helmet, while the SC is in lockdown mode, denying citizens their
fundamental right to access justice!”
o “Historians will note the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, particularly the
role of the last four Chief Justices, when they look back on the last six years to see how
democracy was destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency.”
 Against these tweets, on July 2nd, Mahek Maheshwari, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court,
requesting that the court initiate contempt proceedings against Bhushan and Twitter India for
the tweet, alleging that it 'inspired a feeling of no-confidence' in the judiciary's independence
and amounted to 'scandalizing the court.'
 It was noted by the SC that Adv. Maheshwari's contempt petition lacked prior approval from
the Attorney General of India, and hence took Suo motu cognizance of Adv. Prashant Bhushan's
tweets on 22nd July 2020.
 Bhushan and Twitter India were both charged with contempt of court for unspecified tweets
posted on the latter's platform by the former. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 PRASHANT BHUSHAN’S ARGUMENTS

o Mr. Bhushan emphasised that he wrote the first tweet to express his displeasure with the
SC's non-physical functioning for more than three months, which has resulted in the
citizen's fundamental right remaining unresolved. “
o He also emphasised that he posted the photo of CJI riding a bike without a mask around
several people, to highlight the fact that while the courts are functioning virtually due to
COVID-19 fear, CJI was without a mask.
o That he was just practicing his right to freedom of speech and expression by giving his
bona fide opinion and he had not said it with any malicious intention.
o Mr Bhushan emphasised that with respect to second tweet, it was just his opinion and
which was shared by many retired judges of the Court.
o Free speech is a prestigious right that is critical to democracy and there is a right to
dissent in a democracy.

 TWITTER INDIA’S ARGUMENTS

 o Twitter stated that it is a microblogging platform which acts merely as a ‘intermediary’ as
defined in IT Act. Thus, it acts only as a display board and is neither the originator/
author nor have any editorial control.
o That after court’s order it has blocked access to those tweets.”
“

ANALYSIS

 In the present case, The Court stated that citizens' trust, faith, and confidence in the judicial
system is a sine qua non for the existence of the rule of law. An attempt to shake constitutional
democracy's very foundations must be met with a firm hand. The tweet has the effect of
undermining the very foundations of India's democracy. There is no doubt that the tweet has a
negative impact on public confidence in the judicial system. We are concerned about the harm
that is being attempted to be done to the institution of justice administration. The said tweet, in
our opinion, degrades the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court of India and the Chief
Justice of India, and offends the majesty of the law. An attack on the Supreme Court not only
causes ordinary litigants to lose faith in the court, but it also causes other judges in the country
to lose faith in the country's highest court.
 It's impossible to rule out the possibility that other judges will get the impression that they
aren't safe from malicious attacks because the Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from
malicious insinuations. As a result, such attacks on the country's highest judiciary should be
dealt with harshly in order to protect the larger public interest. There is no doubt that the Court
is required to be magnanimous when judges or the institution of justice administration are
criticised.
 However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to the point of weakness when dealing with a
malicious, scurrilous, and calculated attack on the very foundation of the judiciary, thereby
jeopardising the democracy's very foundation. The summary jurisdiction of this Court must be
used to uphold the majesty of the law and the administration of justice, not to vindicate the
dignity and honour of the individual judge who has been personally attacked or scandalised.
The people's trust and confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver fearless and impartial
justice is the foundation of the system.
 When the Supreme Court fails to protect itself from malicious insinuations, it is impossible to
rule out the possibility that other judges will get the impression that they are not safe from
malicious attacks. As a result, such attacks on the country's highest judiciary should be dealt
with sternly in order to protect the larger public interest. When judges or the institution of
justice administration are criticised, the Court must be magnanimous.
 Contempt of court is a common-law concept that originated in England during the time when
kings made their own decisions. Although this concept is appropriate for monarchical times, it
 is incompatible with a democratic structure such as India, whose entire identity is based on
freedom of speech and the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.
 Arbitrariness of Criminal Contempt: “Contempt of court is a unique situation in which an
individual's freedom of speech is curtailed in order to protect the court from scandal and
defamation, allowing it to carry out its duties in a fair and fearless manner. Article 19(2) of the
Indian Constitution specifically recognises it as a restriction on freedom of speech.
Furthermore, the Contempt of Courts Act of 1976 has given this concept legal recognition.
Contempt of court can be either civil or criminal, according to the Act.”
While civil contempt is reasonable in the sense that it ensures that the court's orders are
followed, criminal contempt occurs when the judiciary has been given broad powers that are
frequently misapplied. Criminal contempt has three elements: “(a) words, whether written or
spoken, signs, and actions that "scandalise" or "tend to scandalise" the court's authority, (b)
prejudices or obstructs any judicial proceeding, and (c) interferes with or obstructs the
administration of justice.” The first element of criminal contempt is undefined and subject to
the court's ultimate discretion. Contempt proceedings are unique in that they pit the individual
against the court, rather than the state against the individual. “The judges are the petitioners,
judges, and executioners, and they begin with the accused's presumption of guilt. From the
outset, it appears that the court's discretionary power is arbitrary, resulting in an unfair trial of
the accused, who is at the mercy of the court. Under the guise of protecting and demanding
respect for the court of law, it makes a mockery of natural justice principles.”
In the present case, the same provision is used against Prashant Bhushan.
 Right to appeal: “Every citizen has a substantive right to appeal, which is enshrined in Article 21
of the Indian Constitution. However, in the current situation, where the Supreme Court
initiates a contempt proceeding against the contemnors, there is no provision to appeal against
the Supreme Court's decision.” Although there is a provision for review in such cases, the
petition is heard by the same bench, so the chances of it being heard without prejudice are
slim.”

CONCLUSION “

To begin with, it is entirely reliant on the judges' judgments and predispositions. Second, the Act
ignores one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice: nemo debet esse judex in propria
causa, i.e., no one shall be judge in his own cause. As a result, in contempt proceedings, the court
assumes the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, which frequently results in unfavourable
outcomes. Finally, Section 14 of the Act gives the court the authority to punish alleged acts of
contempt immediately. Judges have used this power to prosecute individuals in the heat of the
moment in several cases, even when the contemptuous act was minor.”
In the present case, it is wrong to say that his statements are capable of demolishing a pillar of
democracy i.e. the rule of law.