Expressing voices cannot be termed 'contempt', Prashant Bhushan tells SC

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is facing criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court for his tweets about CJI, has submitted that the criticism of the CJI does not scandalise the apex court or lower its authority and power of contempt under Article 129 is to be utilised "to aid administration of justice" and not to shut out the voices that "seek accountability from the court for its errors of omission and commission".

New Delhi: Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is facing criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court, has submitted in his affidavit that the power of contempt under Article 129 is to be utilised "to aid administration of justice" and not to shut out the voices that "seek accountability from the court for its errors of omission and commission".

Bhushan made the submission in an affidavit before the Supreme Court on Sunday, in which he also said that to suggest that the CJI is the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is the CJI is to undermine the institution of the Supreme Court of India.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had earlier issued a contempt notice to Bhushan in a suo moto case following a petition requesting the same over two of his tweets.

On 22nd July the top court had issued notice to Bhushan for his derogatory tweets on CJI SA Bobde's picture showing him sitting on a luxurious motorcycle owned by a BJP leader and tweets against the past four CJIs for allowing the destruction of democracy.

Bhushan submitted that his tweet about Chief Justice of India riding a motorbike was to underline his anguish at the non-physical functioning of the Supreme Court for last more than three months, with hardly any cases being heard. The affidavit further said that Bhushan's tweet about last four Chief Justice of India was his "bonafide impression" about them and it is his considered opinion that "Supreme Court allowed the destruction of democracy" and such expression of opinion, however, "outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable" can't constitute contempt.

"What I have tweeted is thus my bonafide impression about the manner and functioning of the Supreme Court in the past years and especially about the role of the last four Chief Justices have played vis a vis their role in being a check and balance on the powers of the executive, their role in ensuring that the supreme court functions in a transparent and accountable manner and were constrained to say that they, contributed to undermining democracy," the affidavit said. "Freedom of expression and the concomitant right to criticise includes a fair and robust criticism of the judiciary. This cannot amount to contempt of court or lowering the dignity of the court in any manner," it added.

"To prevent citizens from forming, holding and expressing a 'bonafide opinion' in Public Interest on any institution that is a creature of the constitution is not a reasonable restriction and violates the basic principles on which our democracy is founded. To prevent a citizen from 'evaluating in Public Interest the performance of any institution that is a creature of the constitution and putting it in the public domain to inform, generate a debate, build public opinion for reforms/change is violative of our right to free speech," reads the affidavit of Bhushan submitted in response to suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court against him for his critical tweets on the past and present CJIs.

(WITH INPUTS FROM ANI)