Ex-judges, lawyers question SC judgement on holding Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt

Several retired judges, lawyers and eminent citizens have questioned the Supreme Court's judgement, holding advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt, saying it would have a chilling effect on people having critical views on functioning of judiciary.

Several former SC judges including Justices Ruma Pal, B Sudarshan Reddy, G S Singhvi, Aftab Alam, Madan B Lokur and V Gopala Gowda expressed their anguish and disappointment with the verdict. Expressing their support and solidarity with the judgement, they maintained that the judgement was not appropriate.

Separately, forty-one lawyers of the Supreme Court issued a public letter, saying the judgement on Bhushan does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of public but will discourage advocates from being outspoken.

They said they were 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.

"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," they said, expressing their dismay with the August 14 judgement.

Prominent among those who signed the letter are Dushyant Dave, Huzefa Ahmadi, Arvind Datar, A S Chandhiok, Sriram Panchu, Meenakshi Arora, Shekhar Naphade, Raju Ramachandran.

They maintained tweets by Bhushan did not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what was 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.

In a related development, over 450 lawyers from across the country shot off a letter to SC Bar Association President Dushyant Dave, asking him to ensure the link of virtual hearing on sentence against Bhushan, fixed on August 20, should be shared with them.

Pointing out alleged procedural irregularities in the matter, including absence of consent by the Attorney General, they said, "The majesty of the Supreme Court of India is not affected so much by criticism, as it is by its own response to it."

They demanded that invoking of the ‘iron hand’ by the constitutional court to respond to criticism in speech should be reviewed.