I have touched upon this issue almost 10 days ago. But I'm bringing it to your notice again as I feel it is an important issue concerning citizens, their rights, vis-a-vis freedom of speech, which is one of the important fundamental rights.

The SC bench held Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate Of Public Interest Causes, guilty of the crime of contempt of court for his two tweets.  Mr. Bhushan was convicted in the case, but the court is yet to consider the quantum of punishment. In the meantime over 3000 citizens-including Advocates Along with 12 former judges -have signed a statement extending solidarity to Mr. Bhushan, arguing that his tweets were “a bona fide expression of concern regarding the functioning of the top court” and that the criticism coming from a senior member of Bar,” must be considered by the judiciary as an opportunity to introspect and strengthen the institution”. Justice Lodha, and yesterday’s Joseph Kurian’s statement, that the unseemly hurry in taking up this matter when there are other burning issues pending, seem to point to general apprehension that the bench was likely to convict him. Such an impression doesn’t auger well for a fearless and independent judiciary. It surprises me to know that an advocate who all through his life was present before the super court judges defending constitutional rights of people winning and losing, fighting, and challenging, was considered to have lowered the authority and held guilty. Perhaps the court considers that he has no freedom to pass two comments for which he was held guilty.

A strong and independent and fearless Bar is a precondition for an independent strong judiciary. Here in this case the worrisome part of Bhushan’s judgment is that it prods more questions than answers. To what extent can criticism be freedom of speech and an assault on an institution? Is the criticism of the Supreme Court illegal considering four of its judges held a press conference in January 2018, warning how judiciary was facing threats to its independence and criticising the then CJI? As I understand this judgment is not about curbing Bhushan’s adventurism. It has long term implications and could be interpreted as forbidding anybody from commenting on the judiciary, even if it’s based on logic, evidence, and jurisdiction.

In our constitutional scheme of things, the Supreme Court, no doubt plays a very important role in interpreting the law. But it can not arrogate itself the luxury of thinking it is above criticism. A public delineation of its laws shouldn’t be misconstrued as an attempt at the disruption of the entire judicial system. The courts should act on the criticism if and when it is found to be valid or its shoulders should be broad enough to shrug them. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta once remarked that the right to dissent is the biggest and most important right granted by the constitution. Judges of the top court should be more tolerant of criticism, as Supreme Court is so great that one man's criticism cannot undermine it. But courts also should do introspection.

In my opinion, had the Supreme Court, been magnanimous and condoned Prashant Bhushan its image would have enhanced. The observation compliments and criticism should be taken with equipoise “applies to the judiciary as well. I'm hoping some of my FB lawyer friends and experts on the topic will also chime in their opinion to create awareness on this issue among people.