A Bar silenced under threat of contempt will undermine Court's independence: Lawyers express dismay over SC verdict in Prashant Bhushan case

A group of lawyers, including several prominent senior lawyers, have issued a public statement expressing their dismay over the Supreme Court's August 14 verdict that held Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of Court over two tweets that were critical of the Supreme Court's functioning. ."An independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment."reads the Statement.The signatories add that it is the lawyers' duty to freely bring any shortcomings to the notice of bar, bench and the public at large. .The lawyers add that "While some of us may have divergent views on the advisability and content of Mr. Prashant Bhushan's two tweets, we are unanimously of the view that no contempt of court was intended or committed." .If such an attack is not dealt with, it may affect national honour and prestige: Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan contempt verdict.They go on to state that while Bhushan is not an ordinary man, being a lawyer of good standing in the Supreme Court "his tweets do not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what is routinely expressed about the court's working in recent years by many on public fora and on social media.".Even some retired judges of the Supreme Court have expressed similar views, the statement adds. In this backdrop, the lawyers go to raise concern that, ."This judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken... A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court."Statement.A grievance is also raised that the opinion of the Attorney General, KK Venugopal was not taken before the verdict was passed, while it is mandated under contempt law. .Clearly erroneous in its reasoning, analysis and interpretation of contempt jurisdiction: Navroz Seervai on Prashant Bhushan Judgment.As such, the signatory-lawyers have urged that the August 14 verdict should not be given effect to unless the standards of contempt jurisdiction is reviewed by a larger Bench of the top Court after the pandemic, when the matter can be heard in open court. The statement reads, ."We are of the firm view that the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt.".The signatory-lawyers have also requested other members of the Bar to subscribe their names on google forms that accompany the statement. .To view the Full Statement, click here.In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court has begun hearing on merits another contempt case lodged against Bhushan which dates back to a 2009 interview wherein he accused certain former Supreme Court judges of corruption. .The Court today sought answers to certain larger questions touching upon the permissible limits of crticism against the Court, querying, "In case you have any grievance against any judge, what should be the process? In what circumstances can such allegations be made?.In case you have any grievance against a judge, what should be the process?Supreme Court asks in 2009 Prashant Bhushan contempt case.This matter will be heard next week.