Archive

Parsi jurists have been amongst those in the forefront to speak in support of public interest lawyer Prashant Bhushan who on August 14, 2020 was held guilty of criminal contempt for his criticisms of the Supreme Court (SC) of India by a three-member bench of the apex court. Raking up a 2011 contempt case pertaining to the Delhi based civil rights lawyer, the bench issued a suo moto notice for contempt citing two recent tweets by Bhushan which they claimed were "an attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy,” and should therefore be "dealt with an iron hand.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former attorney general (AG) of India, Soli Sorabjee told the Mojo YouTube channel editor Barkha Dutt that the incident did not show the SC "in good colors. (The issue) could have been handled in a more harmonious manner. They could have warned him, that’s all...Surely they (the SC) have broad shoulders. They can take criticism...They could have ignored him, not made him into a martyr. Give him a lecture and forget about it.” When Dutt quoted Justice Arun Mishra’s justification of the action stating "a line has to be drawn,” Sorabjee replied, "Where?” The other two on the bench were Justices B. R. Gavai and Krishna Murari.
In an interview with The Hindu of August 24, Sorabjee noted, "People have different beliefs. Do you punish people for having some beliefs which are not to the liking of the Supreme Court?...The question here is that of principle. Can you or can you not criticize the judiciary based on certain facts... And if you do this, do you commit contempt of court? On the contrary, I believe you enhance the authority of the court.” He also questioned the urgency with which the case was taken up. "Would it have all fallen down, crumbled if they had waited a little time?” He disagreed with the Court’s view that the AG’s prior consent was not required before initiating suo moto (direct) contempt charges. "The AG is the first law officer...They cannot ignore him...This is a misuse of the inherent power.”
Noted senior counsel Navroz Seervai launched a blistering attack on the contempt proceedings on the Bar and Bench website on August 24. "The judgment in Prashant Bhushan is nothing short of a frontal attack on the fundamental right of free speech exercised against the higher judiciary, and in particular the Supreme Court. Despite protestations to the contrary, the message sent out loud and clear is: we will not tolerate any criticism or censure. And to ensure that result, the threat of contempt is employed, as a warning to those who dare to speak out against the Court and its judges. In particular, it is intended to browbeat members of the legal profession into silence. It is calculated to have a chilling effect on the one section of civil society that is familiar with the workings of the judiciary and the conduct of judges both in and out of court…
"How a non-maintainable and incomprehensible contempt petition was illegally filed, promptly entertained by the registry, promptly placed before Justice Mishra on the administrative side, promptly converted into a suo motu contempt petition by him, and promptly taken up for hearing by a bench headed by himself, is now too well-known to be labored. So too is the animus Justice Mishra bears against Bhushan, an aspect of the matter elaborately set out in his letter of protest to the CJI (Chief Justice of India) dated 25th July 2020. The letter stated in no uncertain terms that he had a reasonable apprehension that he would be denied a fair and impartial hearing by a bench headed by Justice Mishra. He sought the intervention of the CJI to place the matter before another bench, which did not contain Justice Mishra. Of course nothing was done in the matter by the CJI… Having followed the matter and written about it in the recent past, I had no doubt what the result would be — guilty as condemned — the Court being the prosecutor, judge and executioner. And so it came to pass.”
Another senior counsel Aspi Chinoy in a statement mentioned, "On August 17, 12 former judges and 3,000 citizens and lawyers have in the context of the Supreme Court’s judgment holding Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt pointed out that ‘the intention was to engage with the concerns articulated by many regarding the reluctance of the judiciary to play its constitutionally mandated role as a check on governmental excesses and violations of fundamental rights.’”
Chinoy continued, "I believe that contrary to the views expressed in the judgment, such action does not protect ‘the majesty of law’ or preserve or enhance ‘the confidence of the people’ in the Supreme Court. Stigmatizing such comments on matters of public importance as ‘scurrilous’ and ‘malicious’ and taking contempt proceedings for the same, does not preserve or enhance the stature of the Supreme Court and is unlikely to push these matters outside the pale of public comment and debate.”
London based jurist Sarosh Zaiwalla tweeted on August 20, "Criminal contempt in India ought to be abolished as England has done. It is often abused to silence free speech.”