More than 3,000 people, including 12 former judges, have signed a statement extending solidarity and support to senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was recently found guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court for two tweets.

The signatories said that the tweets were a bona fide expression of concern regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court, which they said is the fundamental right of every citizen. “The intention of that expression was to urge the apex court to restart physical hearings, particularly of matters of national importance. The intention was also to engage with the concerns articulated by many regarding the reluctance of the judiciary to play its constitutionally mandated role as a check on governmental excesses and violations of fundamental rights by the state,” they said.

Such criticism, especially by a senior member of the bar, must be considered by the judiciary as an opportunity to introspect and strengthen the institution, the statement says.

The statement, along with the full list of signatories, has been reproduced below.

✿ ✿

Statement Relating to the Judgment Against Prashant Bhushan in the Contempt of Court Matter

Press Release: August 17, 2020

We, the undersigned citizens of the country, express anguish and disappointment at the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court finding human rights activist and advocate, Prashant Bhushan, guilty of contempt of court in respect of two tweets. We reiterate our solidarity and support for Prashant Bhushan at this conviction, which we believe is not appropriate.

The tweets were a bona fide expression of concern regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court, which is the fundamental right of every citizen. The intention of that expression was to urge the apex court to restart physical hearings, particularly of matters of national importance. The intention was also to engage with the concerns articulated by many regarding the reluctance of the judiciary to play its constitutionally mandated role as a check on governmental excesses and violations of fundamental rights by the state.

Such criticism, however fiercely expressed, is in fact a plea to the system to engage with these public concerns. Bona fide criticism, especially by a senior member of the bar, must be taken in the spirit in which it is made – to introspect and thereby strengthen the institution of the judiciary. To hold that such criticism shakes the foundations of the judiciary and needs to be dealt with an iron hand, appears to be a disproportionate response which could, in fact, diminish the reputation of the Court . If a tweet by an individual is perceived by the judiciary as destroying public confidence in the institution, it speaks poorly of the judiciary’s confidence in itself. As former Chief Justice Bharucha has said, the court should have broad shoulders to ignore such criticism even if it thinks it is unfair and unwarranted. Further, the undue haste with which the matter has been dealt with via virtual hearing amid the pandemic is extremely concerning and has, in fact, been questioned by former Chief Justice Lodha.

Every institution in a democracy has to earn the public’s affection and respect, and the hallmark of a strong institution is its openness to public scrutiny and commentary. The judgment will have a chilling effect on people expressing critical views on the functioning of the judiciary. Stifling of criticism by stakeholders does not bode well for any institution, especially the highest court in the country.

Signed by more than 3000 people including:

1. Justice Ruma Pal, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

2. Justice B Sudershan Reddy, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

3. Justice GS Singhvi, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

4. Justice Aftab Alam, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

5. Justice Madan B Lokur, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

6. Justice Gopala Gowda, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

7. Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice, Delhi and Madras High Courts

8. Justice NK Sodhi, former Chief Justice, Kerala and Karnataka High Courts

9. Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge, Patna High Court

10. Justice Chandru, former Judge, Madras High Court

11. Justice Kannan, former Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court

12. Justice V. S. Dave, former Judge, Rajasthan High Court

(Courtesy: The Wire)

❈ ❈ ❈

Public Statement from Lawyers Regarding the Supreme Court Ruling in Prashant Bhushan Contempt of Court Case

17 August 2020: A statement has been released by 41 senior members of the Bar addressing it to the Supreme Court and to the “public of India at large” expressing their discontent towards the conviction of Senior Advocate and an active civil rights and public interest lawyer Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court.

The statement has been signed by many eminent lawyers and members of the Bar who have been practicing for several years such as Janak Dwarkadas, Navroz H Seervai, Vrinda Grover, Dushyant Dave, Mihir Desai, Dairus Khambata, Huzefa Ahmadi, among others.

✿ ✿

Statement to the Supreme Court and to the Public of India at large

We, the below named, practicing members of the bar in India, have noted with dismay, the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case. An independent judiciary consisting of independent judges and lawyers, is the basis of the rule of law in a Constitutional democracy. Mutual respect and the absence of coercion, are the hallmarks of a harmonious relationship between the bar and bench. Any tilting of the balance, one way or the other, is deleterious both to the institution and the nation.

An independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment. It is the duty of lawyers to freely bring any shortcomings to the notice of bar, bench and the public at large. While some of us may have divergent views on the advisability and content of Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s two tweets, we are unanimously of the view that no contempt of court was intended or committed especially when contrasted with the normal standard that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue… She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.”

While Mr. Prashant Bhushan as a lawyer of good standing of the Supreme Court, may not be an ordinary man, his tweets do not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what is routinely expressed about the court’s working in recent years by many on public fora and on social media. Even some retired judges of the Supreme Court have expressed somewhat similar views.

This judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary. A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court.

We also express a deep sense of disappointment about the Supreme Court’s utter disregard of the presence of the Learned Attorney General, a highly respected Lawyer of great eminence, and its refusal to seek his valuable opinion in the matter, which is mandated even as per contempt law.

We are of the firm view that the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt. We do believe that the Supreme Court will hear the Voice of the People expressed all around in last 72 hours on the subject and take corrective steps to prevent miscarriage of Justice and restore the confidence and respect that Citizens have generally reposed in it.

(Courtesy: India Cultural Forum. The full list of signatories is available on its website.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Veteran Politicians in Support of Prashant Bhushan: A Champion of Common Causes and Defender of the Constitution Of India

Several political leaders from opposition parties have extended support to Prashant Bhushan, saying his comments which the Supreme Court found were in contempt of court, were issued in the interest of upholding constitutional and democratic norms.

Twenty politicians, including Shashi Tharoor, Farooq Abdullah, Sitaram Yechury, former BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, Manoj Jha and Saifuddin Soz, said they have ‘unqualified commitment’ to uphold the dignity of India’s constitutional bodies but are of the opinion that the SC’s verdict will have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and expression of dissent.

The full statement is as below.

✿ ✿

We, the undersigned, express our dismay about the judgment of the Supreme Court of India declaring legal luminary Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court on the basis of a complaint about two tweets about decline of democratic institutions and growing problems in the delivery of justice in recent times. While expressing unqualified commitment for upholding the dignity of all our Constitutional bodies including the Supreme Court of India, we are afraid that this decision may have a chilling effect on free speech and expression of dissent.

Prashant Bhushan is a conscientious lawyer of three decades standing who has always upheld Constitutional and democratic norms. His critical comments in the tweets should have been seen in this light. It is sad that honourable Court has not found it necessary to distinguish between constructive criticism and malicious statement. We fail to find a legitimate basis for such a sweeping approach as it would deter ordinary individuals from performing their citizenship duty of being objective in their expressions about the institutions of our democratic republic.

It is our conviction that the cause of free speech needs to be protected and promoted as our young democracy needs plurality of perspectives and vigilance about all institutions to become more meaningful for all the men and women of India and we may move forward towards a just and fearless society on the basis of enlightened citizenship.

We appeal to the Supreme Court of India to avoid the impression that we are entering an era of silence about our institutions by punishing someone who has acted as the conscience keeper of the highest court of our country.

(The full list of signatories is available on facebook.)