By Paras Nath Singh
Senior advocate of the Supreme Court and activist Prashant Bhushan is getting wide support from the leading figures of the civil society including lawyers and academics for his stand on the Indian judiciary. Senior lawyers of the country have expressed the view that the judgment of the apex court holding Bhushan guilty in the contempt petition, is an attack on free speech.
Senior Advocate Iqbal Chagla in his fierce criticism wrote in Indian Express that Supreme Court’s judgment in Prashant Bhushan case spells out a chilling lesson that undermines the most valuable fundamental right — the freedom of speech.
Another Senior Advocate from Bombay Navroz Seervai opined that the judgment is not only “an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the “dignity and majesty” of the Court in the eyes of the public”, but also appears to be a calculated attack on a certain section of the civil society.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said the court ought to have leaned on the side of freedom of speech. “Considering the contribution which Mr. Bhushan has made in public interest litigation, it is disheartening that the court acted on two tweets which in the very nature of the medium is not capable of nuance,” he said.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, in her opinion piece, published in BloombergQuint said “Is this even constitutional…being held guilty of a crime without a charge being framed, or the red herring on malintention to scandalise the court? This alone makes the judgment erroneous in law, anti-constitutional, and a great setback for the rights to life and free speech”.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde noted that the court should also ensure its authority was not further undermined while exercising the power of contempt. “The judgment does not provide a cogent narrative as to how the authority of the court was undermined by just two tweets. Public trust and authority of the court rests on firmer foundation than that.”
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai who mainly practices at Bombay High Court took to his Facebook to express his disappoint with the judgment. He said respect is something which cannot be forced. Respect in common English means deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities or achievements.
He wrote “I want to ask the Present Supreme Court since it claims to have acted as a citadel of democracy (1) why has the issue of political bonds not been decided yet (2) why have habeus corpus petitions concerning Kashmiri detunes been put on back burner? (3) Why is the constitutionality of NRC CAA not been decided yet. (4) why does it take two months, many deaths and massive criticism for it to awaken to the plight of migrant workers. And I can go on and on. Supreme Court says that people approach Supreme Court because they have faith in it”.
A statement, signed by leading lawyers such as Vrinda Grover, Dushyant Dave, Kamini Jaiswal, Karuna Nundy, Shyam Divan, Sanjay Hegde, Menaka Guruswamy and others, said that the SC’s verdict against Bhushan said an independent judiciary does not mean that judges are “immune from scrutiny and comment”.
Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia in his blog stated there was no legal reasoning in the judgment, and therefore nothing to analyse. He added Mr. Bhushan had filed an extensive reply to the contempt proceedings against him, contextualising and defending the two tweets for which these proceedings were initiated; among other things. The Supreme Court, however, refused entirely to engage with Mr. Bhushan’s reply.
“There are some colourful – and somewhat confusing – references to the Supreme Court being the “epitome” (?) of the judiciary, the need to maintain “the comity of nations” (?!), and an “iron hand” (!). There is, however, no legal reasoning, and no examination of the Reply”, Bhatia said.
Academic Pritam Baruah in his piece published in article14 said that in convicting Prashant Bhushan of contempt, the Supreme Court partly relies on a 265-year-old British case, from an era of undue deference to authority. It used “dignity” 31 times and “authority” 50 times in a vague, murky formulation that is the province of sophistry rather than legal justification.
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in its statement said that the Supreme Court verdict slamming senior lawyer and human rights advocate Prashant Bhushan’s critical tweets of it is “a sign of the current deterioration in the state of free speech in the country,”
In a statement, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) said it is “dismayed and disappointed” by the verdict.
“PUCL feels that the finding of the SC is not only unfortunate but will also have the contrary effect of lending substance to the view that just like how other democratic institutions in India are criminalising dissenters, the SC too is unwilling to acknowledge serious issues about the way the judicial system is functioning,” it said.
Historians Ramachandra Guha and S Irfan Habib also condemned the judgement against Bhushan. Economists Prabhat Patnaik and Jayati Ghosh came out strongly against the Supreme Court judgment.
Guha tweeted “Through this act, the Supreme Court has let itself down, and has let the Republic down too. A dark day for Indian democracy” whereas Habib wrote “SC found Bhushan guilty on the eve of our Independence Day. I don’t think even the British ever punished dissenting or even critical voices of lawyers, poets, writers and intellectuals this way”. (IPA Service)