The judiciary is the most significant pillar of any civilised society and a crucial administrative component in the modern world. Just and fair trials, freedom of speech, and expression are among the most priceless resources available to every person in a democracy where the rule of law is upheld. But, as envisioned by the Constitution, the right to free speech must be practised within appropriate bounds.

The smooth, fair, impartial trial and administration of justice must not be hindered or hampered by anyone; doing so constitutes contempt of court and is punishable by law because it may negatively or positively impact the administration of justice and damage the judiciary's standing in the eyes of the general public. The Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan was charged with "criminal contempt of court" by the Supreme Court for posting two tweets.

It is simple to form opinions while reading a judgement; for example, if one believes that freedom of speech and expressions is crucial and must be protected at all costs, they may find numerous reasons to criticise the judgement on various levels, whereas those who think that contempt of court laws are necessary to ensure the independence and proper administration of justice will support the judgement in its entirety. In truth, neither the reasoning presented in the judgement nor any feature of the case is novel or exceptional. There have been a number of instances of judicial contempt in the past. Yet, the Prashant Bhushan case, like all other examples, raises questions about the boundary between free speech and contempt of court, which occasionally seems to blur.

Brief Facts:
In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr.
The Supreme Court has been notified of a petition by Shri Mahek Maheshwari to begin contempt proceedings against Mr. Prashant Bhushan (Advocate), contemnor No.1, and Twitter Inc., contemnor No.2, for intentionally and deliberately utilizing hate speech against this Court and the whole legal system in the following tweets:

27th June 2020: "When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs."

29th June 2020: "CJI rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!"

Shri Dushyant Dave (learned senior lawyer) appeared on behalf of Contemnor 1 before the court, and Shri Sajan Poovayya (a learned senior counsel), along with Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee and Mr. Manu Kulkarni, appeared on behalf of Contemnor 2.

Contemnor 1's senior counsel, Shri Dave, has argued that the petition Mr. Maheshwari filed cannot be a Suo moto contempt petition because the proceedings began after he filed it.

The tweets did not damage the Supreme Court's reputation; rather, it is a right to examine an institution's condition of affairs freely and fairly in order to foster public support for reforming the institution.
The Chief Justice of India is not the Supreme Court, nor can the Court be compared with the Chief Justice or even a line of four CJIs.

According to Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the court cannot proceed with the case of contempt if the judge is the target of the attack and it does not interfere with the fair administration of justice.

It was noted in Baradakanta Mishra vs. The Registrar of Orissa High Court & another that if a judge is being disparaged as an individual rather than as a judge, he must seek private redress and the court cannot punish him for contempt.

The learned counsel further argued that the CJI as an Individual is the target of any vilification in the current case. Mr. Bhushan expressed his sorrow in the first tweet since the actual court hasn't been operating for several months, depriving the litigants of justice. But, in the second tweet, he expresses his perspective on the actions and inactions of the last four Chief Justices of India and how they have harmed India's democracy. He asserts that the current CJI and the part-three CJIs are the targets of the claims in their individual capacities.

Twitter Inc. argued that twitter is merely an intermediary and not the author of the tweets sent on its site. It merely serves as a display board for the public and has no editorial control over the tweets. Twitter Inc. has a safe harbour as an intermediary for any objectionable posts made by its users on its platform under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000.

Issues:

• Whether Mr. Prashant Bhushan's tweets about the Indian judiciary are healthy criticism or have undermined the public's faith in the Supreme Court as an institution?
• Whether or not these tweets were directed against the Chief Justices of India (CJIs) as individuals or as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India?
• Whether the acts of Twitter Inc. have also tampered with the reputation of the Indian judicial system?

Legal Aspects

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
   
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of:
  • The sovereignty and integrity of India
  • The security of the State
  • Friendly relations with foreign States
  • Public order, decency, or morality
  • Contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence
     
• Article 129 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215 of the Constitution of India: Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 142(2) of the Constitution of India: Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of:
  • Securing the attendance of any person
  • The discovery or production of any documents
  • The investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself
     
• Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
  • Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
  • Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
  • Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

It's crucial to remember that there is a substantial difference between an action or statement that attacked a judge personally or as the court. Here in this case, it seems to be scandalising or to lessen the power of the court. The judiciary has created a test for deciding whether or not a publication interferes with the regular administration of justice or is purely a defamatory attack on judges. There needs to be a fine line drawn for Freedom of Speech & Expression when it comes to hate speech so that one person's rights do not infringe upon another's dignity or rights.

Commentaries:
The tweets' unethical behaviour prompted accusations of judicial disobedience. On social media, Mr. Bhusan tweeted to the public and disparaged the CJIs. The judgement in this case is now up for debate as to whether or not it was fair. Alternatively, to be more precise, was the entire procedure conducted in conformity with the constitution, including the judgement? In my perspective, the answer to that would be "yes." The contestants brought up a number of concerns, and the court provided its justifications using numerous precedents and rulings.

Observations Made by the Court on the Tweets

• 27th June 2020: For the purposes of this case, the court divided the 1st tweet into three separate parts:
  • When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India.
  • Even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction.
  • And more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.
  In the tweet's second and third parts, according to Mr. Bhushan, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of India have significantly aided in the demise of India's democracy. The period of emergency is one of the darkest in Indian democracy's history. This tweet gives off the sense that historians would look back on the last six years as a time when democracy was destroyed, and that the Supreme Court played a significant role in it, as well as the last four Chief Justices of India. The Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justices of India are being criticized, not a certain judge specifically.
   
• 29th June 2020:

The first sentence of the tweet can be interpreted as criticism of the Chief Justice of India personally because it claims that the CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle owned by a BJP leader in Nagpur without a mask or helmet. The second section, however, attacks the CJI as the administrative head of the Judiciary at a time when he maintains the SC in lockdown mode depriving individuals of their fundamental rights to seek justice. That suggests that the Chief Judge has disregarded the citizen's fundamental right to access justice and is taking advantage of his luxurious ride, which belongs to a BJP leader, without taking any safety precautions in the midst of the pandemic.

The bench has also stated that the court was off-site when the CJI's photo was taken. Also, it is untrue that the court is under lockdown. The physical operation would cause the virus to spread due to the pandemic. As a result, courts operate virtually. According to some, this claim is untrue, malicious, and scandalous and has the potential to undermine the public's trust in the Indian judicial system.

This disagreement between the two parties is not personal. The CJI was targeted i.e one prominent advocate against another person in authority. The court's conclusion that a person must have some standing or knowledge is unquestionably accurate and should be followed by everyone. I believe that everyone agrees that maintaining professional ethics is challenging, which is why so many people find it challenging to do so. But it's really not that difficult. There are procedures for everything that needs to be done, and the legal system is no exception.

Regarding the second defendant, Twitter Inc. has taken action by blocking the incriminating tweets and disabling access to them in order to demonstrate its sincerity. Contemnor 2 was thereby released from these actions by the court.

Though Mr. Prashant Bhushan may have been correct in his reasoning but it is his responsibility as an advocate to conduct himself ethically. But, he was unable to do so because he assailed the Supreme Court's honour and integrity, despite the fact that it is the highest court in the land. The tweets may have been morally justified from the perspective of the respondent, but they are unethical since an advocate should always work to offer constructive criticism without seeming sarcastic or criticising the courts, the judges, or the body that oversees the court of law.

What Mr. Bhusan did was wrong. He should not have entered the private life of CJI. Contempt of court has two sides. It exists so that the judiciary can enforce professional standards, but because it is so unstable, the judiciary may use it to raise itself above the law and the constitution, which is undesirable. More badly than his post, his response to the court was insulting. How long would the system be subject to this? Judges are denigrated, and their families are made to feel ashamed.

Their private lives are the target. Isn't it morally and ethically wrong? Yes, it is the duty and responsibility of concerned individuals to ask questions, but there should be a limit to what they can ask. For me, a simple apology may resolve many legal disputes of this nature. Bhushan, though, made no apologies. And this is incorrect. There must be a balance between freedom of speech and court's power to punish those who criticize court.