The SC did not use the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 to convict Bhushan. This has used its inherent rights under Article 129 of the Constitution to punish itself for contempt.While the Contempt of Court Act allows for a maximum term of six months for criminal contempt, Article 129 does not allow for an outer limit.

Article 129 Supreme Court Exercised Powers not Contempt Law
Article 129 Supreme Court Exercised Powers not Contempt Law

Introduction

On Bhushan’s tweet about the collapse of democracy and the role of the present and previous four CJIs, the apex court said that ordinary people should feel that “when historians look back in the future, the impression they will get is that, in the last six years, democracy has been destroyed in India without a formal emergency, and that the Supreme Court played a specific role in that destruction.

Also Read- Suspension of Fundamental Rights in India- Supreme Court

Facts of the case

Referring to the Bhushan Motorbike Tweet, the SC said: “The said Tweet is capable of giving the layman the illusion that the CJI enjoys a trip on a motorbike worth Rs 50 lakh belonging to the BJP chief at a time when it has held the Supreme Court in lock-down mode denying people their fundamental right to access justice.”

Also Read- Criminal Defamation in India

Legal Standpoint

As part of the institution of the administration of justice, Bhushan, instead of protecting the majesty of law, has indulged in an act that tends to lead to disrepute. Scurrilous accusations are not expected from an individual who is a 30-year-old lawyer. Pronouncing the judgment, and thus indicating that he was the author of the judgment, Justice Gavai read only one sentence: “We hold Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of this court.”

Ironically, the SC did not use the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 to convict Bhushan. This has used its inherent rights under Article 129 of the Constitution to punish itself for contempt.While the Contempt of Court Act allows for a maximum term of six months for criminal contempt, Article 129 does not allow for an outer limit.

Also Read- DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIGH COURT

The bench said that Bhushan had personally moved the SC challenging registration of the FIR against him in Rajkot and had been exempted from arrest. “It’s malicious and scandalous to make such wild allegations. This has a propensity to shake public trust in the institution of the judiciary and the institution of the CJI and to undermine integrity andSupreme Court bench authority of the administration of justice.We cannot support Bhushan ‘s argument that that statement was a bona fide criticism of him on account of his frustration that the courts did not work physically, “said Justices Mishra, Gavai and Murari.

Conclusion

“Being part of the institution of the administration of justice, Bhushan, instead of protecting the majesty of law, has indulged in an act that tends to lead to disrepute. It is expected that Bhushan will act as the responsible officer of this court. Scurrilous accusations are not expected from a person who is a 30-year-old lawyer, “he said. “The tweet has the effect of destabilizing the very core of this essential pillar of Indian democracy and is completely at odds with the majesty of law,” he said.

For case specific advice please contact best/top/expert Supreme Court lawyer advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Mullanpur Baltana etc.

This post is written by Kosha Doshi.

More on 99888-17966