The prosecution of Prashant Bhushan, and the 14th August guilty verdict by the Supreme Court for the twin tweets and fixing August 20 for sentencing of the accused, had initiated a debate among legal fraternity and the academic for criticism of judges and freedom of speech, and as well generated widespread reactions started pouring in the media from public at large, on whose purported behalf the 108 page guilty verdict was delivered.”
“Perhaps Prashant Bhushan was selected to instil a fear among others to keep silence about the irregularities generally seen in the lower judiciary or the high courts. Prashant Bhushan did not budge to take time or reconsider his statement and stood the ground to face the sentence, which enhanced his prestige for honesty and fairness.”
“The contempt law had been abolished in Britain, from where it had initiated, but the Law Commission of India found it fit to recommend its continuance in India. Someone said, “Supreme Court has broad shoulders” and suggested that it can be self-correct. When a newspaper caption showed Lord Templeton and two other Judges “You Old Fools”, the Lord did not initiate any proceeding. When asked, the Lord replied that half of that statement was true, as he was an old man, and the other half is simply perception of someone else though, he did not consider himself to be a fool. As far as fragility of prestige of court and the contemnor is concerned, in the whole of the episode, the public at large remains the judge.”
Whereas, in Indian context, former Mardras High Court Judge Justice K. Chandru said, “In Tamil Nadu, a person wrote a letter to the High Court after the High Court had acquitted a murder accused. The letter stated that since the High Court had acquitted the accused, it should tell public as to who is the actual culprit. The High Court punished him for criminal contempt of court. What is ‘scandalizing’ in that letter? He was not attributing any motives to the judges. It was only an immature statement and also showed the person’s lack of understanding of criminal law.”
According to former SC Judge V. Gopala Gowda, “The definition of criminal contempt on the ground of scandalizing the court is very vague. The word ‘scandalizing’ must be clarified.” Justice K. Chandru, says, “Judges are using this as a weapon to silence critics. The word ‘scandalizes’ is susceptible to dubious interpretation. Therefore, it has to go.”
The Hindu group director N. Ram, activist Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan have on July 31, 2020, moved to Supreme Court challenging the validity of Section 2(c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners contended that “It violates the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). It is unconstitutional as it is incompatible with preambular values and basic features of the Constitution.” The petitioners have quoted, “A mere interrogation by a traffic constable about the red beacon on the hood of a judge’s car was held to be contempt on the ground of scandalizing the court.