CONTEMPT OF COURT - RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.

Submitted By Diya Miraj

AUD- 13561
BBA LLB

Contempt of court is the act of showing defiance or disrespect towards a legal court. This can involve
rudeness towards legal authorities during a court proceeding or wilfully disobeying a court order,
which may lead to contempt of court proceedings. If found guilty of contempt of court, a judge can
impose penalties such as fines or imprisonment. In India, there are two forms of contempt of court:
civil contempt, where someone fails to comply with a court order and may face penalties to ensure
compliance, and criminal contempt, which is punitive and serves to deter future acts of contempt.
Contempt of Court is a power vested in the Supreme Court of India as per Article 129 of the Indian
Constitution, granting the Supreme Court the authority to punish for contempt of itself. However, this
power has faced criticism from former judges and lawyers for being too broad and vague in its
definition, potentially allowing it to be used to stifle criticism of the judiciary and limit freedom of
speech.

One notable case that brought attention to the issue of contempt of court was "Re: Prashant Bhushan
and another" in 2020. In this case, Prashant Bhushan, a prominent legal figure, posted two tweets
expressing critical views on the functioning of the courts and the then Chief Justice of India, SA
Bobde. These tweets led to the initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court.
The Court determined that the tweets had the potential to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute and undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and the CJI's office in the
eyes of the public. Consequently, the Court allowed the contempt proceedings to proceed.
Prashant Bhushan raised several arguments in his defence, including that the initial petition in the case
did not have the required sanction from the Attorney General of India, as mandated by the Contempt
of Courts Act. He also contended that his tweets were expressions of anguish over the functioning of
virtual courts, which he believed compromised citizens' fundamental rights. He argued that these
expressions should be protected under the right to free speech as enshrined in the Constitution.
Regarding the tweet on July 27, he claimed it was a genuine opinion and could not amount to
contempt, regardless of its unpopularity.
The Court, however, held that it had the inherent power to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings
without the Attorney General's sanction, as provided in the Contempt of Courts Act. Concerning the
tweets, the Court ruled that any publication attacking a judge or the court as a whole, while casting
unwarranted and defamatory aspersions on the judges' character, could be considered as scandalizing
the court. Such actions erode public trust and confidence in the judiciary.
The Court differentiated between criticism of judges acting in their individual capacity and as judges.
The former is not subject to contempt proceedings, but the latter can face such proceedings if their
actions undermine the administration of justice, eroding public trust in the judiciary. Ultimately, the
Court found that Prashant Bhushan's tweets did not offer fair criticism of the judiciary and lacked a
bona fide intention. Consequently, he was held guilty of criminal contempt and ordered to pay a fine
of one rupee. Failure to pay the fine would result in a three-month imprisonment and a three-year ban
from practicing law.
SALIENT FEATURES OF ADV ACT
Causing confusion such as vakil, pleaded, attorney, barristers.Individual criteria set outCommon
eligibilityUniform qualification for admission for person to be an advocate Law degree from respect
legal institutionBar council evaluates the universities or college and give a recogniseDiversion of
advocates into senior and others advocates based on merit Creation of autonomous bar council one
for whole of India and states Bar council of India to have general supervision and control over state
bar councilsRule making power vested in the bar council of India Regarding governance ofLegal
profession Legal education Dress code Misconduct Disciplinary action