Drop contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan: Former judges, activists

Over 100 former judges, writers, academicians, politicians and activists on Monday expressed concern over the initiation of contempt proceedings against prominent activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan by the Supreme Court, saying it appears to be an attempt at stifling criticism of the apex court, which had faced "serious questions about its "reluctance" in checking "governmental excesses" in the past few years.

In a joint statement, the group asked the Supreme Court to withdraw to initiate suo-moto contempt proceedings against Bhushan about his tweets in the "interest of justice and fairness" and to maintain the dignity of the apex court.

The statement was signed by 131 people, including former Supreme Court judge Justice Madam B Lokur, former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah, writer Arundhati Roy, former Navy chief Admiral L Ramdas, CPI General Secretary D Raja, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat, former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and activists Aruna Roy, Anjali Bharadwaj and Nikhil Dey.

"In the past few years, serious questions have been raised about the reluctance of the Supreme Court to play its constitutionally mandated role as a check on governmental excesses and violations of fundamental rights of people by the state. These questions have been raised by all sections of society, media, academics, civil society organisations, members of the legal fraternity and even by sitting and retired judges of the Supreme Court itself," it said.

"Most recently, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to intervene in a timely manner to avert the migrant crisis during the lockdown came under intense public scrutiny. Concerns have also been raised regarding the decision of the court to not restart physical hearings, even in a limited manner, despite passage of five months since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic," it said.

The group urged the Supreme Court to take note of these concerns and engage with the public in an open and transparent manner. They were of the opinion that the initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan, who had "articulated some of these concerns" in his tweets, "appears to be an attempt at stifling such criticism, not just by Prashant Bhushan but by all stakeholders in the Indian democratic and constitutional setup".

Emphasising that an institution as important as the Supreme Court must be open to public discussion without the fear of retribution or action of criminal contempt, they reminded that criminal contempt as an offence has been circumscribed and made redundant in most functioning democracies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

"Even in India, the principle that criticism of the judiciary should not be stifled by the indiscriminate use of the power of contempt has been recognised by the Supreme Court as well as by academics and advocates of repute," it added.