Prashant Bhushan files petition challenging validity of defective plea in contempt case

Faced with a contempt notice over his tweets, advocate Prashant Bhushan has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging entertaining of a defective plea in violation of his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

He asked the court to recall the order on listing the petition by one Mahek Maheshwari against him on July 22 in a fresh contempt, and the July 24 order in 2009 contempt case for being "unconstitutional, illegal, void and non-est".

Maheshwari, a Gwalior-based lawyer, had filed a contempt petition against Bhushan which was converted into Suo Motu criminal contempt.

Bhushan claimed to accept the petition by Maheshwari, filed without consent from the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, was illegal in terms of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

He also submitted the matter could not have been placed before a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra without providing him with a copy of the administrative order.

The activist-advocate was issued a notice in a Suo Motu criminal contempt on July 22 for his tweet on June 27, wherein he accused four CJIs of "playing a role in the destruction of democracy". He faced the adverse action for another tweet on June 29, wherein he accused the current CJI of "riding a Rs 50 lakh bike of a BJP leader" and keeping "the SC in lockdown denying citizens their fundamental right to justice".

In his plea, Bhushan claimed an old tweet was published in a newspaper on the date of hearing indicating a conspiracy against him.

He also contended that digging out of the old 2009 matter against him and placing it before a bench led by Justice Mishra was contrary all rules, norms, procedures and practices as this was just one of 19,442 regular hearing matters and 28,882 miscellaneous matters, pending before the court. This reflected "desire to ensure that he is somehow convicted for contempt without following the due procedure".

He alleged that the actions against him smacked of malice in law and deserved to be set aside.

"The directions of the Chief Justice and published orders by the Supreme Court during Covid-19 period indicate that matter as such could not have been taken up at all, there being no urgency whatsoever," he claimed.

Bhushan said if the court was not willing to recall the contempt notice, this matter should be heard when physical hearings resumed as the proceedings in video conferencing faced frequent technical glitches, the inability of counsel to log in and lack of clarity.