New Delhi: Advocate Prashant Bhushan has raised fresh questions on the contempt law in the decade-old contempt case against him, chief among them being “whether the expression of a bona fide opinion about the extent of corruption in any section of the judiciary would amount to contempt of court”.
“If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, whether the person who expresses such an opinion about the extent of corruption in a section of the judiciary is obliged to prove that his opinion is correct or whether it is enough to show that he bona fide held that opinion?” was the follow-up question posed by Bhushan.
The contempt charges pertain to Bhushan’s interview to Tehelka magazine in 2009 in which he was quoted as saying that half of the 16 chief justices of India till then were corrupt.
This is separate from another contempt case in which Bhushan was, on 14 August, pronounced guilty by the top court for two of his tweets on Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde and former CJIs.
During the last hearing in the 2009 case, the court had framed some questions to be considered by it in the case. One of the questions was whether someone can go public with allegations of corruption against a judge, in the wake of an earlier apex court verdict that requires such accusations to be probed by an internal committee.
The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari had said it will also determine the circumstances in which such allegations can be treated as contempt and, if public statements have to be made, then in what circumstances.
The court however, Tuesday directed listing of the case before another bench on 10 September. This is because Justice Mishra is due to retire on 2 September.
Also read: ‘Insincere apology will be contempt of conscience’ — Prashant Bhushan refuses to apologise
‘Does in-house procedure prevent complaints?’
Bhushan has also raised questions on a 1995 judgment, which had laid down the in-house procedure for dealing with complaints against judges. He has asked whether this judgment “prevents complainants, participants in the procedure and others from discussing the matter in the public domain?”
Article 129 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to “punish for contempt of itself”. This was the Constitutional provision that was cited to justify initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets, without the Attorney General’s consent.
Bhushan’s application now asks whether the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 129 and curtail free speech and expression “only to the strict and limited extent permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”.
Submitting these questions during the hearing, Bhushan’s lawyer, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, argued that the questions framed by the court and those raised by him need to be heard by a Constitution Bench. Dhavan also demanded that Attorney General K.K. Venugopal should be heard in the case, as the issues raised are of Constitutional importance.
Justice Mishra, however, pointed out that he was retiring soon and therefore it would be appropriate if the matter is considered by another bench on 10 September.
Also read: ‘No proof Tablighi foreigners spread Covid, were made scapegoats’ — Bombay HC quashes FIRs
We’re heading in a dangerous direction. Those, who’re used to having their way in the scheme of things are not able to digest the changes that have taken place and have started talking ill of anything and everything.
There should be some decency, even when one agrees for Freedom of Speech. There should be some restraint, else, it would be free for all. When common man is being punished for even a small digression, Prashant Bhushans of this world, should face the music and be punished for tarnishing the image of an Institution.
I am looking forward to 3rd September, my parents’ wedding anniversary.
SC would better get used to upright citizens’ outcry against it, which it calls “contempt”. Far more than individual High Courts the SC has given judgements that are jarring to common sense. Like Babri, Rafale cases. Then, it has shied away from giving any judgment at all in some cases which should have been at least heard by it. Like CAA, 370, cases. All this does not speak well for the country’s highest court.