
In Re: Prashant Bhushan
& Anr. …. Alleged Contemnor(S)
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2020
decided 31.08.2020
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14323/14323_2020_33_1504_23746_Judgement_31-Aug-2020.pdf
Bench:
Arun
Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ.
Facts
Supreme
Court has held the alleged Contemnor guilty of contempt and has to pass the
order on quantum of sentence.
Decision
of Court
The Court, after deep thought
as to what
sentence should be imposed on the contemnor, punished him with
a fine of Re.1/ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry of this Court by
15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period
of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period
of three years.
Argument by the Contemnor’s Counsel |
Court’s decision |
The Counsel argued that there is violation of
principle of natural justice because a
copy of the complaint/petition filed
by Shri Mahek
Maheshwari, was not
made available to the contemnor. |
The Court said that since the contempt proceeding
was initiated suo moto therefore it is not of any relevance as to whether a
copy of the petition filed by Shri Mahek Maheshwari was supplied or not. |
The Counsel argued that the contemnor has only
exercised it’s fundamental right of free speech under Art 19(1)(a) of Constitution. |
The Court held that Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution is a fundamental right and it is subject to Art 19(2) containing
reasonable restriction and the same have to be balanced. Furthermore, the Court
said that lawyers are not permitted to make any malicious, scandalous and
scurrilous allegations against the institution of which they are part |
It was
submitted that if
defence of good
faith, as provided
in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act is taken into consideration,
it will have to be held that the act done by the contemnor was done in good faith if it was done honestly, may be done
negligently. |
The Court held that the from perusal of the comments,
it can neither be said to be done honestly or in good faith. |
It was submitted that applying the doctrine of
proportionality the balance will have to tilt in favour of the fundamental rights
as against restrictions. He also
argued that reasonableness means
substantive and procedural reasonableness and imports proportionality. Thus,
he has submitted that the conviction be recalled, and no sentence be imposed. |
The Court held that weighing the pros and cons,
rights, and limitations it jhas rendered a considered decision regarding
conviction, and on consideration of proportionality, the Court finds no room
to entertain this submission and hence, it repelled the same. |
It was argued by learned senior counsel that in
case the contemnor is sent to the imprisonment, he will attain martyrdom, and
he also should not be debarred from the practice. He further stated that the Court could not
pass an order debarring the contemnor from practicing unless a prior notice
was issued to him and an opportunity of hearing was given in that regard. |
The Court said that they are not afraid of
sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from
the practice because conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to
exist in the system of administration of
justice and in
noble profession, and
no remorse is shown for the
harm done to the institution to which
he belongs. |
Learned Attorney General stated that if there is an
expression of regret and if the affidavit is withdrawn, perhaps a quietus(end)
can be given to the proceeding.
The Court on plea of Attorney
General held that since the contemnor declined to withdraw the
affidavit therefore proceeding cannot be ended.