“CJI rides a 50 Lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!,” Prashant Bhushan posted on Twitter.

According to the application, the tweet was malafide and offensive, as the court was working even during the lockdown through virtual mode. “..the remarks are too inhuman forgetting that how much the Hon'ble CJI and other Justices are stretching themselves to grant justice to the citizen that they allow hearing by Video Conferencing mode. They are not even enjoying vacations properly”.

The petitioner contented that the tweet incited 'feeling of no-confidence' among the public in the independence of judiciary and therefore amounted to 'scandalising the court'. Twitter is sought to be implicated for failure to block the tweet.

The contempt of court move is rather surprising as the courts have been showing greater tolerance towards criticism. Unlike in the past, when even small gestures by individuals were construed as lack of respect towards the judiciary, courts have been taking criticism of judgments and conduct of courts more leniently as it was seen as a manifestation of the freedom of expression. As long as such criticism was constructive, there was no reason to feel upset.

Contempt of court has always been a contentious issue, with the prevailing law being a legacy of the imperialist-colonial rule. It was used by the alien rulers against the subjects as they could not tolerate criticism of their rule and laws by a people who did not have the right of self-governance. They saw such act as a challenge to their authority, which in reality did not have any legitimacy but for their advantageous situation.

The prevailing law, in the form of Contempt of Court, Act 1971, is based on similarly named Acts of 1926 and 1952 and retains many of the draconian provisions of the original law. There has been widespread feeling that with India becoming a free country with its free people, with constitutionally-granted liberty and freedom of expression, it was simply an anachronism to have outdated concepts.

This is particularly so, when the conduct of some of our judges themselves amounted to contempt of the august offices they were holding. We have not forgotten the ‘call of national duty’ press conference by four senior Supreme Court judges, in which they had alleged the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra was ‘misusing’ his power as the master of roster to pick and choose favoured judges to constitute pliable benches which would decide certain cases in a certain way in which the CJI had a certain interest.

In normal circumstances, this would have amounted to grave contempt of court, both by the complaining judges as well as the judge against whom such charges were being levelled. But for that to happen, the court as well as the judges have to conduct themselves in a manner that would show respect to their respective positions. As long as that condition is not met, there is no way contempt of court can be invoked arbitrarily.

We have also seen situations when a Chief Justice sat in judgment of his own case. Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, whose subsequent nomination to Rajya Sabha had become even more controversial, deciding the outcome of a sexual exploitation case in which he was himself the central character has been one of the lowest points of our judiciary.

Further down the road, we have seen more instances of courts exceeding their brief in deciding cases in a manner that suited the positions taken by the governments of the day. Decisions in cases such as the Ayodhya Ramajanmabhoomi case will always remain contentious and this cannot be prevented by making laws more draconian.

No one can be faulted for expressing doubts about the courts in such situations and no contempt law can be strong enough to ward off such criticism. The court has to respect itself to expect that it is respected by everyone else. (IPA Service)