Sunday, March 26, 2023
HomeJudiciaryTweets were against personal conduct of judges & not judiciary, Prashant Bhushan...

Tweets were against personal conduct of judges & not judiciary, Prashant Bhushan tells SC

Prashant Bhushan's counsel argued that the senior lawyer had made immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit.

Text Size:

New Delhi: Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday defended in the Supreme Court his two alleged contemptuous tweets saying they were against the judges regarding their conduct in their personal capacity and they did not obstruct administration of justice.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishan Murari, which on July 22, had issued a show cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him for his two alleged derogatory tweets against the judiciary, reserved the verdict in the case.

Heard the senior counsel appearing in the matter. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved, the bench noted in the order.

While reserving the order in the contempt case, the top court dismissed a separate petition filed by Bhushan seeking recall of the July 22 order by which notice was issued against him in a contempt proceeding initiated for his alleged contemptuous tweets against the judiciary.

The bench, during the hearing, did not agree to the contention of senior advocate Dushayant Dave, representing Bhushan, that the separate plea had raised objection against the manner in which the contempt proceedings were started without the opinion of Attorney General K K Venugopal and it be sent to another bench.

Bhushan has sought a direction to declare that the apex court’s secretary general has allegedly “acted unconstitutionally and illegally” in accepting a “defective contempt petition” filed against him, which was initially placed on the administrative side and later on the judicial side.

Referring to a judgement, the apex court said that it has meticulously followed the law in entertaining the contempt plea and it did not agree to the submission that it be sent to another bench for hearing.

Heard the senior counsel (Dave) appearing in the matter. We do not find any ground to entertain this Writ Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s) shall stand dismissed, it ordered.

Dave then argued for Bhushan in the contempt case and said, two tweets were not against the institution. They are against the judges in their personal capacity regarding their conduct. They are not malicious and do not obstruct administration of justice .

Bhushan has made immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit , he said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters.

Perhaps you would have given him Padma Vibhusban’ for the work he did in the last 30 years, Dave said, adding that this was not the case where contempt proceedings would have been initiated.

Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on suspension of fundamental rights during the emergency, the senior advocate said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out.

In a 142-page reply affidavit, Bhushan stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some , cannot constitute contempt of court.

Bhushan, in the affidavit, has referred to several apex court judgements, speeches of former and serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases.

The respondent (Bhushan) states that the expression of his opinion however outspoken, disagreeable or however unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court. This proposition has been laid down by several judgments of the Supreme Court and in foreign jurisdictions such as Britain, USA and Canada, he submitted.

Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a ”reasonable restriction”, the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism.

While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had said these statements are prima facie capable of “undermining the dignity and authority” of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large.

Bhushan along with former Union Minister Arun Shourie and veteran journalist N Ram have also moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of a legal provision, dealing with criminal contempt on the ground of scandalizing the court , saying it was violative freedom of speech and right to equality.

Also read: No apology, only ‘regret’ in Prashant Bhushan’s statement to SC in 2009 contempt case


Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism


  1. Absolutely Right, Mr.Ravindran. Even a layman from legal perspective can guess how the top courts and judges would decide a highly publicised cases. A new trend is courts may pick a reaction or opinion for contempt of court if the maker is popular…….

  2. I maintain contempt of court is anathema in a democracy. Democracy needs a contempt of citizen (prevention of) act.

    I can also state with conviction that the way our courts function, a judge can just toss a coin and decide which party to favor and accordingly extract data from the arguments submitted by the counsels to draft is order. As is non disputable both sides will have some facts, some laws and some case laws quoted .

Comments are closed.

Most Popular