KHCAA Passes Resolution Extending Moral Support To Bhushan; Terms SC Judgment Convicting Him 'Most Unfortunate'
KHCAA also urged the Parliament to amend the Contempt laws
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association General Body on Monday passed a resolution extending moral support to Advocate Prashant Bhushan and also termed the Supreme Court judgment convicting him for contempt as 'most unfortunate'"The manner in which the Honourable Apex Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Adv. Prasanth Bhushan and also to the reasoning in...
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association General Body on Monday passed a resolution extending moral support to Advocate Prashant Bhushan and also termed the Supreme Court judgment convicting him for contempt as 'most unfortunate'
"The manner in which the Honourable Apex Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Adv. Prasanth Bhushan and also to the reasoning in the Judgment finding him Guilty of Criminal Contempt is most unfortunate and ought to have been avoided," the General Body resolved. It also extended moral support to Bhushan "in his fight for Justice, Liberty and Accountability in Judiciary".
The Resolution has been passed in the backdrop of recent verdict of the Supreme Court holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt, for his remarks over the CJI(s) and functioning of the Supreme Court.
Amend Contempt Laws; Scandalising The Court Should Not Be Ground To Initiate Contempt
The General Body of the High Court Association in a meeting held on August 24 also appealed to the Parliament to make necessary amendments to Article 129 and Article 215 of Indian Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in order to "circumscribe the powers" of Courts, in respect of Contempt Jurisdiction. It urged the Parliament to provide that Criminal Contempt will arise only "when there is contempt on the face of the court" or "when a conduct amounts to preventing the course of justice". It has been urged that "scandalizing the court" should not be a ground for initiating Criminal Contempt. It is further requested that there should be an "intra-court appeal" in criminal contempt cases.
The lawyers' body also resolved "to appeal to the parliament of India, to make necessary amendments to Art.129 and Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to circumscribe the powers of the Honourable Courts in respect of Contempt Jurisdiction and to provide that Criminal Contempt will arise only when there is contempt on the face of the court or when a conduct amounts to preventing the course of justice and that scandalizing the court shall not be a ground for initiating Criminal Contempt; and also to provide an intra court appeal for the criminal contempt cases.".
More than 200 lawyers participated in the General Body meeting which was held via zoom video conferencing on Monday at 3 pm. Most of the Senior Advocates and lawyers who spoke during the General Body supported the resolution. The resolution was accepted by about 65% lawyers who participated in the poll.
Time To Derecognize 'Scandalising The Court' As A Form Of Contempt
Background
On August 14, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held Bhushan guilty of contempt of court holding that his tweets contained "scurrilous allegations" which had the "tendency to scandalize the Court".
The Petitioners had argued against invocation of Article 129 and Article 215 of Indian Constitution for exercising criminal contempt jurisdiction. In his written submission, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhushan had urged that any contempt arising from speech can only be restricted by way of reasonable restrictions under 19(2) framed by law, for contempt.
"To hold that Article 129 give a carte blanche to the Supreme Court to impose any punishment (different from or exceeding the maximum prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act) would mean that the Supreme Court acting under 129 can ride rough shod over Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) which could never have been the intended.
The only way to harmonize Article 129 with Article 19 would be to say that while the Supreme Court as a court of record would enjoy inherent powers to punish for other contempt such as disobedience of courts order or interference with court proceedings and could possibly impose a punishment different from what is prescribed by the contempt of courts Act, it cannot do so when it comes to punishment for contempt for speech," Dhavan had argued.
This issue was also raised by Mr. Bhushan today, during hearing of the eleven years old contempt case instituted against him in connection to his interview to Tehelka Magazine in 2009, subsequent to which the Bench conceded to the requests to settle the question of law.
The SC verdict in the 2020 contempt case has drawn flak from various national and foreign Advocates bodies. Over 2000 lawyers, including noted Senior Advocates, have endorsed the statement of support for Bhushan.
The Executive Committee of the Bar Association of India and Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales have also expressed their dismay at the Supreme Court verdict.
Bodies like Bar Association of India, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) have also criticized the verdict against Bhushan.
Amid all the criticism, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa expressed their support towards the SC verdict. "The Supreme Court of India as well as the judges are subject to both scurrilous language, malicious attacks and scandalizing remarks. Legitimate criticism of both judgments and the functioning of the institution has always existed however when the system miscalculated and actuated by malice, it is the authority of the Court which is undermined," it had resolved.