Contempt of Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression Debate in India: Prashant Bhushan Case

 

India's Supreme Court has convicted renowned lawyer Prashant Bhushan of contempt of court for two controversial tweets. He will be sentenced on August 20.

Prashant Bhushan can be sentenced to six months imprisonment under or without the Contempt of Court Act 1971. According to the law, if the accused wants to apologize, the court can forgive him. On Thursday, senior journalists N Ram, Arun Shurai and advocate Prashant Bhushan withdrew their petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Court Act. The Supreme Court had taken suo moto notice of Advocate Prashant Bhushan's tweets and started contempt of court case. "At first glance, our view is that these statements on Twitter have tarnished the image of the judiciary and its image in the minds of the people, especially for the office of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India," the court said. In his affidavit, Prashant Bhushan said that he was saddened by the failure of the Supreme Court for more than three months and his remarks reflected that fact. Are doing He said that because of this they were detained, the basic rights of the poor and helpless people were not being taken care of and no one was listening to their grievances. On the destructive statement of democracy, Prashant Bhushan argued that "expressing such views may be disgusting and bitter, but it cannot be called contempt of court." Are standing in line. Another case of contempt of the Supreme Court is pending against him. Prashant Bhushan, in an interview with Tehelka magazine in 2009, alleged that half of the last 16 judges holding the post of Chief Justice of India were corrupt. A three-member bench had decided to hear the case on November 10, 2010. On the 10th of this month, the Supreme Court said, "Whether it is an insult to call judges corrupt or not, it needs to be heard." It is also noteworthy that this case has been heard only 17 times in the last 10 years. Prashant Bhushan said in a written statement submitted to the Supreme Court that he was sorry about it, but the court rejected the statement. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Arun Mishra has fixed August 17 as the next date for hearing the case. The Supreme Court says there is a fine line between freedom of expression and contempt. Judges have said they want to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the dignity of judges as an institution. On the other hand, lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that the allegation against him was not about financial corruption but a lack of proper conduct. He said that if his statement had offended the judges and their families, he regretted it.

Chanchal Kumar Singh, a professor at the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, says that under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court and the High Court have been given the status of "Court of Record" and no one has been convicted for contempt. Is. "Court of Record means that the orders of the Supreme Court or the High Court will be carried out unless those orders are overturned by law or any other decision." Was gone Two points were added to the amendment so that the "truth" and the "established principles" should be kept in mind when pursuing a contempt case. There are two types of cases in this law - criminal and civil. 'Civil cases' include cases where there is a clear violation of a court order, decision, or directive, while 'criminal disputes' are cases where there is a case of 'defaming the court'. ۔ Prashant Bhushan is facing a criminal defamation suit. Professor Chanchal Kumar Singh says, "Weakening of the court's image among the general public, which is unique and important, is tantamount to blaming the court in the eyes of the law."

Freedom of expression is seen as the foundation of democracy and the Constitution of India guarantees this right to its citizens. But certain conditions apply to this right and one of these conditions is contempt of court, that is, something that is contempt of court will not fall within the scope of freedom of expression. In the opinion of Prof. Chanchal Kumar Singh, there is such a system in the Constitution itself that the High Court and the Supreme Court have unlimited powers of the 'contemporary court', and freedom of expression becomes secondary. In cases such as the Delhi Judicial Service Association v. Union of India and CK v. OP Gupta, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, neither Parliament nor the state legislators, their Any reduction in rights  Until 2012, contempt of court could be prosecuted in the UK, but contempt of court was removed from the list of crimes following a recommendation from the UK Law Commission. There were only two contempt cases in the twentieth century in Britain and Wales. This suggests that the blasphemy provisions themselves have become irrelevant. Although there are provisions in the United States for disobedience or disregard for the judicial branch of government, the right to freedom of expression is preferred to the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Contempt of court cases against Prashant Bhushan has sparked controversy in society. Some former judges, former bureaucrats, lawyers, and social activists had asked the Supreme Court to drop the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan "in the name of the dignity of the Supreme Court." He wrote a letter requesting that they protect the dignity of the institutions. The 131 signatures in the statement issued in favor of Bhushan included former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Chalmesor, Justice Madan B. Lokor, and former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court (retd) AP Shah, Patna High Court. Justice (retd) Anjana Prakash Shamil is also included. Other signatories include historian Ramchandra Goha, author Arundhati Rai and lawyer Indira Jayas. Meanwhile, another group of former judges, lawyers, former bureaucrats and social activists who sent letters to the president have said that some prominent people are trying to discredit India's sacred institutions like Parliament and Election Commission in front of the world. They do not want to miss any opportunity, and now the Supreme Court is also their target. The signatories to the letter sent to the President include former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court Anil Dev Singh, former Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court Pramod Kohli and 15 retired judges. In all, the letter, signed by 174 people, states that the matter is entirely between Prashant Bhushan and the court. Publicly commenting on it would tarnish the image of the Supreme Court. "If there is no contempt of court law, no one will accept the decisions of the Supreme Court or other courts," said Promod Kohli, president of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and chief justice of the Sikkim High Court. He said that the decisions of the Supreme Court apply to the entire country and all courts and executives are bound to abide by these decisions. Everyone's job is to ensure that the independence, integrity, and goodwill of the Supreme Court is maintained. Retired Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah said, "Unfortunately, judges should think that suppressing criticism will enhance the credibility of the judiciary." According to Shah, the contempt law needs to be reconsidered. And it must be ensured that it is not used to prevent any kind of criticism. Legal experts believe that conflict arises when freedom of expression and Article 129 of the Constitution come face to face. According to the constitution, every citizen is free to express or express his views, but when he comments on the court, then keep in mind Article 129. Contempt of court has always been debated in the Indian judiciary. According to former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court (Retd) AP Shah, the law of contempt is becoming obsolete in many countries of the world, especially in strong democracies. In the United States, for example, commenting on court decisions is commonplace and does not constitute contempt of court. But former Chief Justice Pramod Kohli says if there is no strict law for contempt of court, then no one will be afraid of the courts. There is only one way to stop the administration and the legislature and that is the judiciary. "If the fear of the law and the courts disappears, then the courts will become meaningless and everyone will start acting arbitrarily," he said. Therefore, it is important for everyone to respect the court and the law. ”This law was first introduced in the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949, as Article 108. Once agreed upon, it was accepted as Article 129. There were two main points in this article. The first was where the Supreme Court would be located and the second important point was contempt. Bhim Rao Ambedkar was the chairman of the committee formed for the new constitution.  During the conversation, some members raised the issue of insult. He said the law would impede freedom of expression. In detail, referring to the Supreme Court's right of contempt of court against Sumoto through this article, Ambedkar said that it was necessary. But Assemblymember RK Sadhuva said it would not be fair to think that judges would use the law fairly. He said that the members of the Constituent Assembly are lawyers by profession and are supporting this law, while they are forgetting that judges are also human beings and can make mistakes. But a consensus was reached and thus Article 129 came into being.