Summary
The Court held Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for two tweets which it found distorted facts and undermined public confidence in the Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justice of India. It rejected the objection that Attorney General consent was necessary for these suo motu proceedings. Fair, bona fide criticism remained protected, but the tweets were held to exceed that protection. Twitter was discharged on its explanation as an intermediary and its suspension of the tweets. This judgment determined guilt without imposing sentence.
Issues
- Whether Attorney General consent was necessary for the Court’s suo motu contempt proceedings.
- Whether the two tweets were protected criticism or criminal contempt.
- Whether contempt proceedings against Twitter should continue.
Provisions considered
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaSupplied the Supreme Court’s inherent constitutional power to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Article 19(1)(a) and (2), Constitution of IndiaRequired balancing freedom of fair criticism with permissible restrictions protecting administration of justice. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59)
Held
- Information initially presented without Attorney General consent could lead to suo motu proceedings. The Court’s power arose under Article 129; consent was unnecessary for its own action. Fair procedure and natural justice remained necessary, and the notice specifying the tweets and the opportunity to respond met those requirements here. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Contempt jurisdiction protects administration of justice rather than a judge’s personal reputation. It must be exercised sparingly; bona fide constructive criticism is protected, while attacks tending to undermine judicial authority and public confidence may constitute contempt. Context, purpose and surrounding circumstances inform that distinction. (¶¶ 21, 22, 33, 42, 50, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59)
- The Court distinguished criticism of the Chief Justice personally from the allegation that he had denied access to justice by keeping the Court in lockdown. It found the latter false in light of continuing virtual hearings, including the contemnor’s own participation. It also found the second tweet attacked the Supreme Court institutionally and that neither tweet was bona fide fair criticism. (¶¶ 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75)
- Twitter’s explanation that it was an intermediary without control over users’ posts, together with its suspension of the tweets after cognizance, was accepted. Notice against it was discharged, while Prashant Bhushan was held guilty of criminal contempt. (¶¶ 76, 77)
Result
Prashant Bhushan held guilty of criminal contempt; notice against Twitter discharged. No sentence imposed in this judgment.