In a case of contempt of court, Hon SC just given its verdict on alleged derogatory comments made by Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court Mr. Prashant Bhushan. The so called hell-Ben liberal, activist Prashant Bhushan made his notorious comment on 29.06.2020 that the CJI Bobade who was shown by him sitting on motor bike without a mask and helmet during the COVID 19 lock-down. In his comment he quoted the CJI riding a bike without mask and helmet in lock-down period, at a time when CJI keeps the SC in lock-down mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice. Two days before this i.e. on 27.06.2020, Prashant Bhushan had twitted saying that the last 4 CJIs had destroyed the democracy in India without a formal emergency.
These two comments from so called liberal intellectual who is actually habitual with this type of controversies irked the socio- political environment of the country. This time his target was once again the Supreme Court of India, as it was in 2009, when he allegedly commented that at least half of the 16 former Chief Justices in the Supreme Court were corrupt. But this time the Supreme Court acted in suo moto filing contempt charges against this Sr Lawyer of the highest Court of the country. Replying to this charge, Prashant Bhushan expressed that it is his belief… and he quoted the Mahatma saying he asks for neither mercy nor magnanimity from the court. Advocates of Prashant Bhushan views on this are turning the Nelsons eye and trying for cherry picking on rights to freedom of speech and expression.
Question is that, whether the comments made by Prashant Bhushan are derogatory in nature and scandalizing the dignity of topmost law administrative agency? If yes, then what would be the possible implications of this type of comments on judiciary? Is it attack on the freedom of speech and expression of a person by filing the contempt charges? Is it the time to discriminate the freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions on the use of it? Let’s deal with this accordingly.
There should not be any incongruity about the intentions of Prashant Bhushan’s contemptible attitude nowadays towards certain decisions of Hon Supreme Court. He already gainsaid the verdicts on Ram Janm Bhumi case. When something is not happening as per one’s expectations, then one should not supposed to have the right to scandalize someone relentlessly without understanding the facts. Indian Constitution is based on such pillars like democracy, Parliament, Media etc. To take care of all these things and let them execute properly, as per the Constitution, Judiciary has the sole responsibility and authority. When someone speaks about the justice, he has to have his belief in the institution through which the justice is going to deliver as per the law and the Constitution. As a guardian of the Constitution Supreme Court and High courts have certain powers and privileges to perform its functions without fear or favor. The contempt of Court Act 1971 which is the modified from of the act of 1950, was enacted for this purpose. This law as well as the Constitution itself prohibits the opposition and criticism of the Supreme Court or high Courts decisions and actions which are defamatory in nature. This power is vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts to maintain its authority, dignity and honor.
Now the comments made by Prashant Bhushan on CJI clearly shows the wilful and deliberate attempt to criticize the CJI on the personal ground. It is the clear demonstration of resentment about the personal conduct of the CJI outside the office of the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no any interlink between the CJI sitting on the motorbike without mask and helmet and the so called suspension of fundamental rights of the citizens due to lock-down period. It is worth to note that the Supreme Court never officially declared that it will not hear any case involving the breach of fundamental rights of the citizens during the lock-down. Furthermore, Prashant Bhushan is deliberately and unnecessarily trying to show the connections of CJI with a certain political party. It was absolutely ridiculous and needs vehemently condemned the stance of Prashant Bhushan.
Secondly, in his another tweet, he tweeted saying that the last 4 CJIs had destroyed thee democracy in India without a formal emergency. On what grounds he made these comments? Has he possessing the proofs or evidences before making such allegations? Basically any verdict that the court had given during any CJI tenure, were based on the facts, evidences, the laws and as per the provisions of the Constitution. It is nothing to do with the so called destroying the democracy theory. Further, the declaration of the emergency in India is the sole authority of the Hon President on the written recommendations of the central cabinet. It is nothing to do with the judiciary as far as the Constitution is concerned. Then being a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, how Prashant Bhushan feels that the last 4 CJIs had destroyed the democracy without a formal declaration of an emergency? Actually he was deliberately trying to scandalize or lowering the authority of the judicial administration in India.
These tweets made by Prashant Bhushan definitely come under the contempt of court definitions. If a person or body willfully defaming the judicial system or the verdicts without having fair and reasonable base, then will possibly throwing a bad massage at the masses which questions the integrity, loyalty and responsibility of the judges as well as the judicial system.
Considering these type of potential threats, the Constitution of India under article 19(2), clearly allowed the state to make any law which imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred as per article 19 (1)(a) on the ground of contempt of court. It should be noted here that this provision was made in the original constitution drafted by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, when there was no single amendment to the Constitution. It is thus evident that the constituent assembly was fully aware about the possible misuse of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. That’s why the Constitution makers never granted their citizens, the right to freedom of speech and expression sacrosanct in its manner. Otherwise they could have never allowed the reasonable restrictions to be chaperoned with this right.
To elucidate this, let’s have the judgement of the Hon Supreme Court in this regard in the case of In Re: Arundhati Roy AIR 2002 SC 1375:
“…….. If the judiciary is to perform it duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusting to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.
.. When the court exercise this power it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honor of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalized but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice…
However it must be remembered that the maintenance of dignity of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law; in a democratic set up and any criticism of the judicial institution couched in language that apparently appears to be mere criticism but ultimately results in undermining the dignity of the courts cannot be permitted when found crossed the limits and has to be punished….”
In the same fashion, the court observed in Frankfurter, J. in Pennekamp V Florida (1946) 90 led 1295 at p-1313:
“If men, including Judges and Journalists were angels, there would be no problems of contempt of court. Angelic Judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt as a means of safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide is not a privilege accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise.”
So eventually we can understand that by filing the contempt case suo moto by the Supreme Court is correct in every angle. The so called freedom of speech and expression activists needs to understand the whole gamut before throwing their views in Prashant Bhushan case.
While delivering its judgement, the Supreme Court asked Prashant Bhushan to apologize for his comments. But this so called liberal- activist cum lawyer ridiculously rejected the proposal. In support to his stand, he quoted Mahatma and urged for the punishment for his so called belief. The shameless attitude of Prashant Bhushan clearly indicates his dubious integrity, loyalty and fraternity with the judicial administration of the nation.
The Hon Supreme Court in its judgement found Prashant Bhushan guilty and fined him Re. 1 within certain stipulated time, on failing to do so, three months imprisonment and ban on the practice for 3 years. In its historical judgement the Supreme Court actually evaluated the credibility of Prashant Bhushan which is already dubious in nature. Now Prashant Bhushan has two alternatives; either pay fine of Re 1 or get ready for the imprisonment. If he chooses first option, then by paying a fine he has to accept that he had committed a crime of contempt of court. By this his buncombe belief theory will get exposed. Otherwise he has the option of to go jail and remain silent as a lawyer for 3 years. This would be the golden opportunity for such a hypocrite to prove his innocence and be a Mahatma, which is anyhow not going to happen.
Shivanand Butale
Hi. I’m Designer of Blog Magic. I’m CEO/Founder of ThemeXpose. I’m Creative Art Director, Web Designer, UI/UX Designer, Interaction Designer, Industrial Designer, Web Developer, Business Enthusiast, StartUp Enthusiast, Speaker, Writer and Photographer. Inspired to make things looks better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment