Like in Ayodhya verdict, author of judgments in Prashant Bhushan contempt case not named

Experts say it’s important for judgments to have an authorship, but the new trend of not having an authorship is to just let one wonder as to who has written the judgment.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan | Photo: ANI

New Delhi: In a departure from usual practice, the judgments convicting and sentencing advocate Prashant Bhushan in a contempt case, which was initiated against him for his tweets, do not mention the name of the judges who authored the verdicts. 

The case was heard by a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari.

The contempt proceedings were initiated against Bhushan on 21 July for his tweets on Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde and former CJIs. 

In one of his tweets, Bhushan had commented on CJI Bobde’s photo astride a Harley Davidson bike. In the second tweet, he had criticised Bobde and former CJIs.

The court found him guilty of criminal contempt on 14 August, and noted that not dealing firmly with malicious attacks against the judiciary “may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations”. The judgment, however, did not bear the name of the author. 

On Monday, another order was passed by this bench, which imposed a fine of Re 1 on Bhushan. The court asked him to deposit the money by 15 September, failing which he will have to undergo a jail sentence of three months and will be debarred from practice for three years. This order also did not mention the name of the author. 

Not the first time

The first time this happened was in the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. 

In its unanimous verdict on 9 November 2019, a five-judge constitution bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, held that the 2.77-acre disputed site belonged to Hindus because evidence presented before it through travelogues established their continuous possession of the land.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora told ThePrint that it is “important for the judgments to have an authorship”. 

“The reason why the judgment should have an authorship is because then we know that the judgment has been delivered by the given judge, who takes the responsibility for the contents of his judgment, and the other judges gave their ‘concurrence’ to the judgment. If they have a different view, they may say so,” Arora explained. 

“This new trend of not having an authorship is to just let you wonder as to who has written the judgment, who do we ascribe the judgment to and who has concurred,” she added.

However, senior advocate K.T.S. Tulsi told ThePrint, “There are three authors. Sometimes what happens is that all three have contributed, so they write the names of all three of them.”

He added, “The judgment is circulated and when that happens, the judge who also sat on the bench has a right to either write his separate judgment or to subscribe to the same with some changes. So in the meeting they discuss and decide as to whether this can be accepted by the other two or not.” 

And when there is agreement among them, Tulsi said, they write all three names because it has undergone changes from whatever was written by the author in the first instance. “If there have been changes then it is ascribed to all the three in equal measure.”