2020 Supreme(SC) 483

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Another - Alleged Contemnors
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 14-08-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contempt of Court – As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody, including Attorney General because Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt.
(2) Scurrilous attack on a Judge in respect of a judgment or past conduct has adverse effect on due administration of justice and should be dealt with firmly.
(3) Contempt of Court – Publication by tweet reaches millions of people and as such, such a huge extent of publication would also be one of factors that requires to be taken into consideration while considering question of good faith.
(4) If a citizen while exercising his right under Article 19(1) exceeds limits and makes a statement which tends to scandalize Judges and institution of administration of justice, such action would come in ambit of contempt of court.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Contempt of Court – As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody, including Attorney General because Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt – Once Court takes cognizance, matter is purely between Court and contemnor – Only requirement is that procedure followed is required to be just and fair and in accordance with principles of natural justice – In present case, notice issued to alleged contemnors clearly mentions tweets on the basis of which Court is proceeding suo motu – Alleged contemnor No.1 has also clearly understood basis on which Court is proceeding against him as is evident from the elaborate affidavit-in-reply filed by him – Summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the courts; that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals. It has been held, that it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened – It is not necessary that there should in fact be actual interference with course of administration of justice but that it is enough if offending publication is likely or if it tends in any way to interfere with proper administration of law. (Paras 18, 21, 22 and 23)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a) and 129 – Contempt of Court by a Senior Advocate – Scurrilous attack on a Judge in respect of a judgment or past conduct has adverse effect on due administration of justice – This sort of attack in a country like ours has inevitable effect of undermining confidence of public in Judiciary and if confidence in Judiciary goes, due administration of justice definitely suffers – Judges apart from adjudication of causes from seat of justice are also required to discharge various functions including disciplinary control – When proceedings in contempt are taken for vilification of a Judge, question that Court will ask itself is, whether vilification is of Judge as a Judge or it is vilification of Judge as an individual – In latter case, Judge is left to his private remedies and Court will have no power to commit for contempt – However, in former case, Court will proceed to exercise jurisdiction with scrupulous care and in cases which are clear and beyond reasonable doubt – Jurisdiction is not intended to uphold personal dignity of Judges – However, if attack on Judge functioning as a Judge substantially affects administration of justice, it becomes a public mischief punishable for contempt and it does not matter whether such an attack is based on what a Judge is alleged to have done in exercise of his administrative responsibilities – Vilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning as a Judge even in purely administrative or non- adjudicatory matters amounts to criminal contempt. (Paras 27, 29, 33 and 34)

(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a) and 129 – Contempt of Court by a Senior Advocate – Hostile criticism of Judges as Judges or judiciary would amount to scandalizing Court – Any personal attack upon a Judge in connection with office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander – Yet defamatory publication concerning Judge as a Judge brings court or Judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on majesty of justice – Tendency to scandalise Court or tendency to lower authority of court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt – In general interest of community, it is imperative that authority of courts should not be imperilled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in administration of justice – No such act can be permitted which may have tendency to shake public confidence in fairness and impartiality of administration of justice – A citizen while exercising right under Article 19(1) is entitled to make a fair criticism of a judge, judiciary and its functioning – However, right under Article 19(1) is subject to restriction under clause (2) of Article 19 – An attempt has to be made to properly balance right under Article 19(1) and reasonable restriction under clause (2) of Article 19 – If a citizen while exercising his right under Article 19(1) exceeds limits and makes a statement which tends to scandalize Judges and institution of administration of justice, such action would come in ambit of contempt of court – If a citizen makes a statement which tends to undermine dignity and authority of this Court, same would come in ambit of criminal contempt – When a statement is made against a Judge as an individual, contempt jurisdiction would not be available – However, when statement is made against a Judge as a Judge and which has an adverse effect in administration of justice, Court would certainly be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction. (Paras 52, 54, 57 and 58)

(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Court by a Senior Advocate – Right to free speech vis-à-vis contempt of Court – Alleged contemptuous tweets made on Twitter – Tweet is capable of giving an impression to a layman that CJI is enjoying his ride on a motorbike worth Rs.50 lakh belonging to a BJP leader, at a time when he has kept Supreme Court in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice – Date on which CJI is alleged to have taken a ride on a motorbike is during period when Supreme Court was on a summer vacation – Even during said period, vacation Benches of Court were regularly functioning – Statement, that Supreme Court is in lockdown is factually incorrect even to knowledge of alleged contemnor No.1 – On account of COVID-19 pandemic physical functioning of Court was required to be suspended – This was in order to avoid mass gathering in Supreme Court and to prevent outbreak of pandemic – However, immediately after suspension of physical hearing, Court started functioning through video conferencing – Statement, that CJI has kept SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice is patently false – Making such wild allegation is false, malicious and scandalous – It has tendency to shake confidence of public at large in institution of judiciary and institution of CJI and undermining dignity and authority of administration of justice – Tweet is directed against Supreme Court, tending to give impression that Supreme Court has a particular role in destruction of democracy in last six years and last four CJIs had a more particular role in the same – Criticism is against entire Supreme Court and last four CJIs – Criticism is not against a particular judge but institution of Supreme Court and institution of Chief Justice of India – Publication by tweet reaches millions of people and as such, such a huge extent of publication would also be one of factors that requires to be taken into consideration while considering question of good faith – Alleged contemnor being part of institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting majesty of law has indulged into an act which tends to bring disrepute to institution of administration of justice – It cannot be said that tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of functioning of judiciary, made bona fide in public interest – Attempt to shake very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand – Tweet has effect of destabilising very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy – Attack on Supreme Court does not only have effect of tending an ordinary litigant of losing confidence in Supreme Court but also may tend to lose confidence in mind of other Judges in country in its highest court – Possibility of other Judges getting impression that they may not stand protected from malicious attacks, when Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be ruled out – As such, in order to larger public interest, such attempts of attack on highest judiciary of country should be dealt with firmly – Tweets which are based on distorted facts, amount to committing of criminal contempt – Contemnor No.1 is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court – Notice issued to alleged contemnor No.2 (Twitter) discharged. (Paras 62, 63, 64, 67 to 77)

Facts of the case:

A petition came to be filed in this Court by one Mahek Maheshwari bringing to the notice of this Court, a tweet made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, alleged contemnor No.1 praying therein to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors for wilfully and deliberately using hate/scandalous speech against this Court and entire judicial system. The Registry placed the said petition on the Administrative side of this Court seeking direction as to whether it should be listed for hearing or not, as consent of the learned Attorney General for India had not been obtained by the said Shri Maheshwari to file the said petition. After examining the matter on the Administrative side, this court on the administrative side directed the matter to be listed on the Judicial side to pass appropriate orders.

Findings of Court:

When the foundation itself is sought to be shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored.

Result : Contempt Petition allowed.