Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case : Live Updates From SC

Dave contends that "Interfere or tends to interfere, obstruct or tends to obstruct administration of Justice" as contemplated for criminal contempt is not attracted

Dave reading out certain precedents to buttress his argument that the present case is not a fit case of contempt.

"Rights under Article 19 cannot be 'controlled' under contempt law like this. Sometimes certain things may be unpalatable, I agree. However rights must be upheld"

Dave goes on to talk about how contempt law is invoked sparingly in UK. Refers to judgments by Lord Atkin.

"Bhushan has single handedly contributed in assisting your court in developing jurisprudence to a great extent, especially in tort law. His contribution in developing jurisprudence is immense.

His comments are not out of malice. If he feels there were certain aspects where the court could have done something differently, it could be taken as a suggestion.

His criticism is not out of malice. It's out of love and affection for the court. It's not personal. We all want the court to be stronger.

This is what the constitution says regarding the separation of power..citizen may question.

Please don't be sensitive about these comments. It's seriously affects the right to freedom of speech and expression, and right to life".

Bench- does your client deny writing this? The tweet appeared in the paper

Dave- I'm not denying writing it. That's not the issue here. There must be a procedure that's followed.

Dave goes on to ask why Times of India published a tweet from June in July, when the Bench was due to take up the matter.

"It could have been that they published that tweet mischievously. They should have been called", Dave adds.

SC also hinting that the law has been followed, Justice Deepak Gupta dealt with these issues says Justice Gavai.

The bench now looking into the contentious tweets now

Dave refers to the July 22 tweet (CJI on bike)- They do not scandalize the court. These are all facts.

Mishra J- You've filed a very comprehensive reply. It's well segregated. Let's look into it

Dave again clarifies- Your lordships may not combine various alleged contempts in one and issue notice

Clarifies that charge of contempt must be made out in separate petitions. It is not right on to mix the notices like this