0704 OR 04 Other Relevant Case In Re Prashant Bhushan and Anr

 0704 OR 04 OTHER RELEVANT CASE IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.

 

Case Name:  IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S) 31 AUGUST 2020

Bench: Arun Mishra (J), B.R. Gavai, Krishna Murari

 

Citation:  SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2020

Acts Included:  Article 129, 215 & 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950

     Information Technology Act, 2000

     The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for

     Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975

                           Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Article 129: The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself

Article 142(2): The Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself

Contemnor: One who commits contempt

Criminal Contempt: The publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever, which

scandalises or tends to scandalise, or

lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or

prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with,

the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

interferes or tends to interfere with, or

obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

 

Facts of the case:

    The matter has been brought into the notice of the supreme court to initiate contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter Inc. By Shri Mahek Maheshwari regarding the tweets made by Prashant Bhushan.

 

27 Jun 2020: Advocate Prashant Bhushan tweeted, on his twitter handle that, “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.”

 

29 Jun 2020: He posted the photo of the CJI Justice S.A Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, on his twitter handle and tweeted, “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!”

 

21 Jul 2020:  Adv. Mahek Maheshwari filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan (Contemnor No.1) alleging his tweets as “Cheap publicity stunt” with an attempt to “Spread hatred in the form of anti-India campaign” and against Twitter (Contemnor No.2) for not putting down the alleged tweets.

 

22 Jul 2020: Supreme Court upon observing that contempt petition filed by Adv. Maheshwari lacks prior sanction of the Attorney General of India, took Suo motu cognizance of the tweets posted by the Adv. Prashant Bhushan.

Bench prima facie observed that, the twits on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and can undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court. Thus, the bench issued notice to the Contemnors to file their reply by 05 Aug 2020 and also issued notice to the Attorney General to assist the court.

On behalf of Contemnor 1, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, Shri Dushyant Dave, appeared before the court

On behalf of Contemnor 2, Twitter Inc., Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel has appeared along with Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee and Mr. Manu Kulkarni.

Issue of the Case:

Whether the tweets published by Mr. Prashant Bhushan are healthy criticism of the Indian judiciary or has dashed the public confidence in the institution of the supreme court?

Whether these tweets were against the CJI's as Individuals or CJI's as the CJI of the Supreme Court?

Whether the acts of Twitter Inc. have also tampered the reputation of the Indian judicial system?

 

Arguments:

On behalf of Contemnor 1, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel Shri Dave has submitted that since the proceedings were initiated after Mr. Maheshwari filed a petition, the same cannot be a Suo moto contempt petition.

          The tweets were not scandalising the image of the apex court, rather, it is a right to discuss freely and fairly the state of affairs of an institution and build a public opinion to reform the institution.

          CJI is not the Supreme court, and the Court cannot be equated with the Chief Justice or even a succession of 4 CJI's.

          As stated in Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, if the attack is on the judge and does not interfere with the due course of justice and proper administration, then the court cannot proceed with the case of contempt.

          The first tweet was an expression of agony by Mr. Bhushan because of the non-functioning of the physical court from past several months, which in turn is denying justice to the litigants.

          The second tweet, however, is an expression of his opinion on the action/inaction of the last 4 CJI's and how the same has contributed to the destruction of the democracy in India. He submits that the allegations are on the present CJI and part three CJI's as Individuals in their individual capacity.

          Contemnor 2: Twitter Inc argued that it is not the originator of the tweets posted on its platform rather, is a mere intermediary. It does not have any editorial control on the tweets, rather, it acts as a display board for the people. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology act, 2000, Twitter Inc has a safe harbour as an intermediary for any objectional posts on its platform posted by its users.

Judgement: 

 

The court held that the tweets posted by Prashant Bhushan are based on distorted facts, thus amounts to committing criminal contempt.

          The court accepted that, twitter is only an intermediary and does not have any control on what user posts. Moreover, it acted bonafidely by blocking and disabling the tweets in question. Therefore, the notice issued to the alleged Contemnor No.2 (Twitter) was discharged and hold alleged Contemnor No.1 (Prashant Bhushan) guilty of committing criminal contempt of this court.

 

31 Aug 2020: The Honourable Supreme Court imposed a fine to Re 1 on the Contemnor, that needs to be deposited by 15 Sep 2020. Failure to comply with this order shall result into 3 months of imprisonment and debarring from practicing in the court for 3 Years.

 

14 Sep 2020: Adv. Prashant Bhushan complied with the orders of Supreme Court by submitting Re 1/- in the Registry of Supreme Court.

Download