Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 1020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. – Petitioners
SCM (CRL.) No. No(s). 1/2020
Decided On : 22-07-2020
For the Petitioners: By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India - Petition regarding tweets undermining the dignity of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India - The court expressed a prima facie view that the tweets brought disrepute to the administration of justice. The court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the Attorney General and the petitioner. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Administrative Power - The court has inherent power to maintain the dignity of the judiciary through suo motu action in cases of contempt. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petition involved tweets by the petitioner criticizing the Chief Justice of India and alleging a decay of democracy, which the court found potentially damaging to its authority and dignity.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the statements made in the tweets were capable of undermining the dignity of the Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issues included whether the tweets constituted contempt of court and if the court should take action without a formal complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that protecting the dignity of the judiciary is paramount and that the judiciary has the right to take action against statements that may undermine its authority.
Result: Notice issued for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. implications of statements made on social media regarding judiciary. (Para 2) |
| 2. disrepute impact on administration of justice. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. notice issuance and representation in court. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. scheduling of future proceedings. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
This petition was placed before us on the administrative side whether it should be listed for hearing or not as permission of the Attorney General for India has not been obtained by the petitioner to file this petition. After examining the matter on administrative side, we have directed the matter to be listed before the Court to pass appropriate orders. We have gone through the petition. We find that the tweet in question, made against the CJI, is to the following effect :-
“CJI rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!”
2. Apart from that, another tweet has been published today in the Times of India which was made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on June 27, 2020, when he tweeted, “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”
3. We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.
4. We take suo motu cognizance of the aforesaid tweet also apart from the tweet quoted above and suo motu register the proceedings.
5. We issue notice to the Attorney General for India and to Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate also.
6. Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel has appeared along with Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee and Mr. Manu Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Twitter, and submitted that the Twitter Inc., California , USA is the correct description on which the tweets were made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Let the reply be also filed by them.
7. List on 05.08.2020.
