Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai has issued a statement on the Supreme Court's judgment convicting Advocate Prashant Bhushan of Contempt of Court saying that the judgment appears to be an assault on that part of the civil society which is familiar with the happenings of the Court..On August 14, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment holding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of Court for two of his contentious tweets. In its 108 pages long judgment, the Court has said, among other things, that if an attack of this nature is not dealt with, the same may affect national honour and prestige..If such an attack is not dealt with, it may affect national honour and prestige: Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan contempt verdict.The judgment delivered by the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari also said,."...magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation of the institution of the judiciary.".Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai opines that this judgment is not only "an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the “dignity and majesty” of the Court in the eyes of the public", but also appears to be a calculated attack on a certain section of the civil society. .The members of the legal profession who are familiar with what happens in Court, the conduct of the Judges in and out of Court, appear to be under attack in this judgment, he says..The intent of this judgment is to make an example out of Bhushan and send out a strong message to other members of the legal profession. The judgment will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, the Senior Advocate says. ."The tragedy for the country is that this will, in all probability, succeed—both in its intention and effect."Navroz Seervai.This judgment will act as a precedent, Seervai believes, and will be cited to protect the institution from criticism for its conduct in the manner that took place for the Court's handling of the recent migrant crisis..The Statement reads as:."The judgment is an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the “dignity and majesty” of the Court in the eyes of the public. The judgment is clearly erroneous, both in its reasoning and its analysis and interpretation of the contempt jurisdiction. However, it does not come as a surprise to those familiar with the judgments of the Supreme Court on contempt, over the years. Leading writers on Constitutional Law have commented on the Supreme Court being selective in deploying this power conferred upon it by the Constitution. The differences in the cases of P. Shiv Shankar, being the Law Minister, and [EMS] Namboodiripad or Arundhati Roy are stark. Much more worrying is that this judgment appears to be a calculated assault on the one segment of civil society which is familiar with what happens in Court, and the conduct of judges in and out of Court, namely members of the legal profession. It is these members who can speak to the goings-on in the judiciary with a degree of intimacy that others lack. The judgment will have a chilling effect on free speech generally, and that appears to be its intent, but it is also intended to send out a strong message to the legal profession, by making an example of Prashant Bhushan for daring to exercise his fundamental right to freedom of speech. The tragedy for the country is that this will, in all probability, succeed—both in its intention and effect. The judgment will be cited as precedent by the Court to protect an institution that knows that its conduct and its position lays it open to adverse comment and criticism across the spectrum of civil society, as happened recently in it’s initial response to the migrant crisis. That is something that the Court clearly cannot tolerate, despite all its protestations to the contrary."