The registrar may reject to receive a petition on the basis that it reveals no reasonable cause or is trivial or contains offensive matter, but the petitioner may in a period of fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by means of motion, from such denial to the Court.
Lately, the Supreme Court registry has denied registering an impleadment[1] application recorded/filed by social activist Aruna Roy and 15 other eminent civil social activists in the contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan. The intervention application was filed by the activists in the Suo moto (meaning – on its motion, i.e. action taken by a group of people or person on their own)contempt proceedings
Based on contempt case against former High Court judge, CS Karnan, the plea has been denied by Registrar Deepak Jain mentioning observations made by the Supreme Court which held that contempt is strictly between the Court and the contemnor. The registrar stated that he did not find any reasonable cause to receive the immediate application for registration; further, he accordingly submits the same under the provision of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which states –
The registrar may reject to receive a petition on the basis that it reveals no reasonable cause or is trivial or contains offensive matter, but the petitioner may in a period of fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by means of motion, from such denial to the Court.
Further, the Court had maintained in that case that anybody who joins appearance and disturbs the proceeding in the near future, should bear in mind that they can be ensured against in consonance with law.
The contempt proceedings were commenced against Mr. Bhushan for two of his tweets-
Recently, activist lawyer, Prashant Bhushan has been in the news for his controversial tweets scandalizing the judiciary upon which the Supreme Court initiated contempt of court proceedings. Days after the initiation of proceedings, Twitter has withheld two of his controversial tweets relating to his comments on CJI[2], Sharad Arvind Bobde, riding a bike and his comments on last four CJIs. These 2 controversial tweets withheld by twitter are:
- CJI rides a 50L motorcycle which is of a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, with no mask or helmet, at a time when he maintains the Supreme Court in Lockdown mode is disallowing citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!
- In future when historians will look back at the last 6 years to find out how democracy has been wrecked in India even without a proper Emergency, they will particularly point the role of the Supreme Court in this damage, & more particularly the responsibility of the last 4 CJIs.
Supreme Court issued notice to Twitter while displaying the matter for further hearing on August 5. In response of which senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, had told the Court that the tweets in the matter could be stopped or disabled.
The intervention application filed by Advocate on Record, Prasanna S had as its applicants the following persons:
- Aruna Roy- founder of Mazdoor Kisan Sangathan,
- Jayati Ghosh- JNU Economics professor
- Shantha Sinha- founder secretary of MV Foundation
- P Sainath- journalist
- EAS Sarma- former secretary to Centre
- TM Krishna- Musician
- Jagdeep S Chhokkar- IIM Ahmedabad dean
- Anjali Bhardwaj, Bezwada Wilson, Nikhil Dey, SR Hiremath– social activists
- Prabhat Patnaik- JNU Professor
- Deb Mukharji- former civil servant
- Wajah Habibullah- Chairman of National Commission for Minorities
- Dr. Syeda Saiyidain Hameed- feminist writer
The applicants, via Advocate Prasanna S, have stated that communicating an opinion about running of the constitutional judiciary/ any other public institution is a constitutionally assured right. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan for his tweets condemning /criticizing the judiciary possesses a ‘chilling effect’ on the right to exercise freedom of speech and infringes the rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
They have appealed the top Court to let debate and discussion regarding its performance without those expressing their honest opinion being afraid of “retribution” of criminal contempt.
The start of contempt proceedings in contradiction of the expression of legitimate worries in the alleged contemnor’s tweets will consume a chilling effect on honest critical expression, not only by him but also by all associates of the general public who have a curiosity in the country’s democracy and the rule of law- the application states.
It can be seen that most developed and functioning democracies such as United States of America & United Kingdom have constrained the notion of criminal contempt and even the Indian courts should construe the provision, Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, maintaining with the ‘march of the law’.
The previous week, A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra by issuing notice to advocate Prashant Bhushan, asked him to show cause as to for what reasons should the contempt of court proceedings not be initiated against him for his tweets on the judiciary , In response of which on Monday, Prashant Bhushan stated that bona fide, i.e. authentic & legitimate criticism of the manner and the functioning of the Supreme Court could not constitute contempt of Court. His statement was supported by ambassadors, former judges, former senior government officials, activists and academics who said that previous few years had recorded the serious questions relating to the reluctance of the Apex Court in playing its essential role as a check on governmental performances & excesses & the violations of fundamental rights of people by the state guaranteed by the constitution & therefore commencement of criminal contempt proceedings against Bhushan over his tweets on judiciary sums to “stifling criticism”.
[1] Meaning – asking to Court for consent to join a case in which one is not a party or request the Court for approval to add some other party which is essential for the case.
[2] Chief justice of India
