Can't remain an onlooker if judiciary is maligned: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday said that when a statement is made to malign the image of the judiciary, it would not remain a silent spectator.

"When the authority of this court is itself under attack, the court would not be an onlooker," declared Justice Arun Mishra in judgment holding advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for his tweets.

The bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, pointed out it was well settled that fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in the public interest.

No doubt, that when a statement is made against a judge as an individual, the contempt jurisdiction would not be available. However, when the statement is made against a judge as a judge and which has an adverse effect in the administration of justice, the court would certainly be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction, the bench added.

The court further explained if a citizen, in the exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, tends to scandalise judges and institution of administration of justice, or undermine the dignity and authority of this court and shake the public confidence in the judicial institutions, this would come within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’.

The bench quoted Justice Krishna Iyer, who said if the court considers the attack on the judge or judges to be scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him, who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.