The Case of Contempt.
So, what if have we learnt from following the news this
week? We have learnt that there is a thin line between contempt of court and
voicing one’s opinion and the cases of Prashant Bhushan and Swara Bhaskar are
wonderful examples to understand how that line is sometimes blurred.
As per the Contempt of Court ACT 1971-
“(a)contempt of court? means civil contempt or criminal contempt.
(b)civil contempt? means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
(c)criminal contempt? means 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?
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; ”
Simply put, contempt of court is "willfully disobeying
the court." It basically protects the judicial system from "motivated
attacks and unwarranted criticism." It can be understood as a restriction
on the fundamental right to Freedom of speech and expression.
(You can read more about contempt here in this piece by The Hindu- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-what-is-contempt-of-court/article32249810.ece)
The principle of Freedom of Speech and Contempt both
contradict each other in practice, hence it is obvious that the interpretation
of the law in certain cases can be challenged.
When one first reads about the Prashant Bhushan case, the
judgement given by the court may seem straightforward. Bhushan, a highly
influential lawyer came under heavy fire because of two tweets he made about
the Chief Justice of the SC. One of the tweets talked about the judiciary’s
role in “eroding freedoms in the country” and the second was a photograph of the
Chief Justice riding a bike that is owned by a politician of the ruling party.
The court found Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal
contempt, justifying their ruling in a 108-page judgement. Those in the legal
community remain divided over whether Mr Bhushan should be guilty or not.
The former attorney general of India Soli Sorabjee, in an
interview with The Quint, remarked that the courts should allow Bhushan to prove
the factualness of his tweets, and if they prove to be incorrect, he should be
punished. Moreover, he also said that the court has this notion that nobody can
speak against it; he believes that people should be allowed to speak against
the courts in matters where they believe that the court may be wrong and those
views ought to be considered.
Since the original petition filed by lawyer Mahek Maheshwari
stated that Bhushan’s statements were “unfair” and “factually incorrect”, he
should most definitely be allowed to support the allegations made.
Attorney General, K K. Venugopal, said the SC “can warn him
but not punish him”, and the sentencing that was supposed to happen today has
been postponed to September 10. Bhushan has already refused to issue an
apology, so he will either face punishment or on the advice of the AG, the court
may decide to let him go on a warning.
In other news that came this week, AG Venugopal refused to
allow a contempt case to be tried against Swara Bhaskar for her statements regarding
Supreme Court’s verdict on the Ramjanbhoomi- Babri Masjid Case. Part of her the statement read that "we are ruled by a government that doesn't believe in
our Constitution... we are ruled by police forces that do not believe in the
Constitution... it seems we are now in a situation where our courts are not
sure whether they believe in the Constitution..." and she was accused of
being “derogatory” and “scandalous” by the petitioner.
However, the AG said that the first part of her remarks was
factually correct, and the rest were her perceptions, and on those grounds
rejected the petition to try a case of criminal contempt against her.
The objective of both Bhaskar and Bhushan, when they made
their respective comments were to criticize the Judiciary in their own way,
which they believe is a healthy part of democracy.
The question to be asked in both the cases is how much
the court allows itself to be criticised under the aegis of freedom of speech.
There are, of course, arguments in favour of both sides of this debate; there is
no way to quantify exactly how much dissent should be allowed in the country.
Nonetheless, we must all understand that for the growth of
the Judiciary as well the smooth functioning of the people and the courts,
dissent is the healthy grease that must be allowed and protected in this
country.
Reference links-
https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/contempt.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/24/world/asia/india-lawyer-trial-tweets.html
Comments
Post a Comment