'Ready To Face Same Consequence' : Activists Seek Intervention In Contempt Case Against Prashant Bhushan; Oppose Curbs On Court Reporting

Ten civil society activists have filed an application seeking intervention in the contempt case against advocate Prashant Bhushan, stating that they were ready to face the same consequence as  Bhushan since they would have responded like him in the circumstances of the case against M Nageswar Rao, former interim chief of CBI.

The petition is filed by Aruna Roy, Wajahat Habibullah, Arundhati Roy, Harsh Mander, Jayati Ghosh, Prabhat Patnaik, Indu Prakash Singh, Shailesh Gandhi, Bezwada Wilson and Nikhil Dey. 

Also, famous journalists N Ram, Arun Shourie, Mrinal Pande, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Manoj Mitta have an intervention application stating that making fair comments on sub judice proceedings will not amount to criminal contempt. 

It was on February 6 that the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha issued notice to Prashant Bhushan in the petitions filed by the Attorney General and Central Government seeking to initiate criminal contempt against him

The controversy pertains to the tweets posted by Bhushan in his twitter handle on February 1 to the effect that Attorney General K K Venugopal appeared to have misled the court by submitting that the appointment of M Nageswar Rao as interim CBI Director had the approval of the High Powered Committee. The tweet, which was stated to have been made on the basis of inputs from the Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, also suggested that the AG might have submitted fabricated minutes of the Committee to the Court while hearing the petition filed by Common Cause challenging Rao's appointment as CBI interim chief.

Taking umbrage at this tweet, the AG filed an interim application to initiate contempt action against Bhushan, alleging that his comments amounted to casting aspersions on the integrity and honesty of the AG. Later, the centre too moved a petition, saying "such an act by a counsel of making false and irresponsible allegations on a public platform, rather than raising his grievances, if any, before this Hon'ble Court, is grossly contumacious and warrants punishment by this Court".

According to the intervenors, the contempt proceedings are "an assault on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizen of this country and an attempt to stifle this right by using the power of contempt".

They state that the Mallikarjun Kharge, who was also a part of the Selection Committee, had written to the Government on January 15 stating that Rao's appointment had no approval of Committee. This letter has not been refuted or responded to by the Government. After the AG submitted in sealed cover the purported minutes of the meeting of the Committee which approved Rao's appointment, Bhushan made enquiries with Kharge, especially so since the contents of the sealed cover were not shared with h, who was appearing for the petitioner in the case. 

They submit that the the tweets merely pointed to the discrepancy between the publicly available letter of a member of the High Powered Committee and the claim of government, made through sealed cover which were denied to Prashant Bhushan. The tweets in no way made any disparaging remarks against the AG or his conduct.

"Therefore, the Applicants are of the considered view that what Prashant Bhushan said in his tweets were not unreasonable in the circumstances and the applicants would probably have said the same thing in similar circumstances. In any case the subject of those tweets cannot under any circumstances be treated as an issue of contempt of court", the applicants submit in the petition.

The order passed by the Court on February 6 also indicated that the Court will examine the larger issue of propriety of lawyers and litigants making public their opinion on sub judice proceedings. 

Regarding this, the intervention application filed by five journalists bring to the attention of the court that the in a catena of cases the Court has upheld this right to freedom of expression of the media even in matters that are sub judice.

"The courts have taken the view that that the public interest involved in disseminating information about pending cases involving public interest, outweighs any possible harm or effect on pending cases. The impact on pending cases would not be any greater if the persons reporting on or commenting on the proceedings were lawyers and litigants themselves", their petition reads. 

Prashant Bhushan has filed a petition in the case seeking recall of the notice on the ground that Justice Arun Mishra's bench lacked jurisdiction to initiate criminal contempt as per the present roster arrangement. He states that the action of Justice Arun Mishra's bench in entertaining the oral mention made by the AG and Union of India, and allowing the listing of the contempt pleas before itself violated the rule settled by SC constitution bench that listing of the cases is the sole prerogative of the Chief Justice of India as the master of the roster. 

Read Petition by Aruna Roy and others

Read Petition by Arun Shourie and others