Introduction

The case IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN (2020 INSC 489) was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on August 14, 2020. The petition was filed by Mahek Maheshwari, who sought contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter Inc., alleging that Bhushan had used hate speech against the judiciary through his tweets. The key issues revolved around the boundaries of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the extent of the Supreme Court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 142.

The parties involved included:

• Petitioner: Mahek Maheshwari
• Respondents:
  • Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
  • Twitter Inc., California, USA

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined two tweets made by Prashant Bhushan:

1. Tweet 1: Criticizing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for riding an expensive motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader without a mask or helmet, juxtaposed with the Supreme Court's limited functioning during the COVID-19 lockdown.
2. Tweet 2: Expressing concern over the perceived destruction of democracy in India over the past six years, attributing significant blame to the Supreme Court and the last four CJIs.

The Court found these statements capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and the CJI, thereby constituting contempt of court. Prashant Bhushan's defense centered on the right to free speech and fair criticism, arguing that his statements were expressions of legitimate dissent and concern.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt, citing the malicious and unfounded nature of his statements and their detrimental impact on public confidence in the judiciary.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases that delineate the contours of contempt of court in India:

• Brahma Prakash Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1953): Established that criticism of the judiciary must not undermine public confidence in judicial institutions.
• Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar Of Orissa High Court (1974): Distinguished between vilification of a judge in their official capacity versus as an individual.
• Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court (1954): Affirmed that High Courts have inherent powers to deal with contempt independently of statutory law.
• In re Hira Lal Dixit (1955): Clarified that intent and impact of statements are crucial in determining contempt, irrespective of superficial innocence.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): Emphasized that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with a focus on protecting judicial integrity.
• Re (2002) Arundhati Roy: Held that fair criticism in public interest is protected under Article 19(1)(a), but malicious intent attracts contempt.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's balance between upholding free speech and safeguarding the integrity and authority of the courts.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning hinged on several key principles:

• Constitutional Powers: Assertions were made regarding the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142, emphasizing that these powers are constitutionally vested and cannot be abridged by statutory law.
• Definition of Contempt: By referencing Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court outlined that actions that scandalize or seek to undermine the authority of the judiciary constitute criminal contempt.
• Intent and Impact: The Court evaluated the intent behind Bhushan’s tweets, determining them to be malicious and aimed at diminishing public trust in the judiciary.
• Public Confidence: Emphasizing the judiciary's role as the guardian of the rule of law, the Court held that undermining its authority erodes democratic foundations.
• Balancing Free Speech: While recognizing the right to criticize judicial institutions, the Court clarified that such criticism must be responsible and not intended to defame or obstruct justice.

The Court concluded that Bhushan's tweets went beyond permissible criticism, targeting both individual judges and the judiciary as an institution in a manner that could erode public confidence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's authority to act against actions that disrespect the judiciary and threaten the administration of justice. The key impacts include:

• Strengthening Judicial Authority: Affirming the judiciary's inherent power to police contempt, thereby safeguarding its integrity.
• Defining Limits of Free Speech: Clarifying that while criticism is protected, defamatory and malicious attacks are not, setting clear boundaries for discourse involving judicial institutions.
• Deterrence: Serving as a deterrent against future contemptuous actions by public figures, legal practitioners, and the media.
• Reinforcing Public Confidence: By taking firm action against contempt, the Court underscores its commitment to impartiality and the rule of law, thus maintaining public trust.
• Guidance for Future Cases: Offering a clear framework for evaluating whether statements constitute contempt, aiding lower courts and legal practitioners in similar matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Contempt of Court

Definition: An act of disrespect or disobedience towards the judiciary or its officers, which can hinder the administration of justice or undermine the authority of the courts.

Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India

• Article 129: Establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record with the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 142: Grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.

Criminal Contempt vs. Civil Contempt

• Criminal Contempt: Actions that scandalize the court, lower its authority, or obstruct the administration of justice.
• Civil Contempt: Willful disobedience of court orders or interference with the court's functions.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Conclusion