The Supreme Court, hearing contempt pleas of the Centre and Attorney General against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday, said it would examine if a person can criticise the court in a sub-judice matter to influence the public opinion which may interfere with the course of justice.
The top court said now-a-days it has become a trend for the lawyers appearing in a sub-judice matter to make statements in the media and participate in TV debates.
It said the court is not averse to media reporting of cases but lawyers appearing in sub-judice matters should restrain themselves from making public statements.
The court said freedom comes with responsibility and judiciary needs to be protected from public opinion.
The remarks were made by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha while hearing the contempt petitions filed by AG K K Venugopal and the Centre against Bhushan for his tweets in which he had said that government appeared to have misled the top court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of meeting of the high-powered Selection Committee headed by the Prime Minister.
The bench sought reply from Bhushan, who was present in the court room and accepted the notice, within three weeks.
"As the issue concerned is vitally important that whether in a matter, which is sub-judice, is it open for anyone to criticize the court to influence the public opinion which may tend to interfere with the course of justice. We deal it appropriate to hear at length," the bench said, posting the matter for further hearing on March 7.
At the outset, Venugopal pointed that when the matter challenging the appointment of former interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao was pending, Bhushan had gone public and made a statement that government has allegedly misled the court by producing a fabricated document.
"This affects me as I have produced the documents before the court. He (Bhushan) cannot go on in public saying that these were fabricated document," Venugopal said and referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets.
"All I am seeking is that an end has to be put to this. It is the pending matter. It is being done. No one can go on making statements in a sub-judice matter. This is the right time that court settle this issue. Although I am not seeking punishment for my learned friend (Bhushan) but I want an end to this," he said.
He added senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who has appeared in the matter, has written an article that no contempt was made out. "Is that justified?"
Venugopal referred to the 1968 verdict of the apex court in a suo motu contempt case of former West Bengal chief minister P C Sen who had made a speech in All India Radio justifying a legislation which was struck down by the Calcutta High Court.
The bench after perusing the 1968 verdict observed, "In earlier times lawyers restrained themselves from going to the press in a sub-judice matter. Now-a- days it has become a trend to go to the press".
"We are not averse to media reporting of cases or cameras. We have to deal with larger issue of interfering with the course of justice which may affect the people's mind," the bench said.
It said that the court has to struck balance between the rights of public to know and reports of court proceedings which may interfere with the administration of course of justice.
"Media reporting about what happened in the court is all right but a bar or barrier of some kind should be there at a level," Justice Mishra said and referred to a case where the apex court has said that media trial has taken place.
"We have to see what should be the role of lawyers appearing in the case. They should resist themselves from making statements in public in a sub-judice matter. It is for the court to decide what is truth and what is false. Public opinion cannot be formed like this," the bench said.
Justice Mishra referred to a recent verdict delivered by him and said that although he has upheld the independence of bar but responsible senior lawyers like Venugopal, Fali S Nariman and K Parasaran should look what is happening around.
"Judiciary needs to be protected from public opinion. If bar is bent upon killing the judiciary then what can be done. No court can do anything even Supreme Court can't do anything. There are lot of issues which need to be settled and is affecting lot of people," the bench said, adding that freedom comes with responsibility.
The bench said that cameras are very tempting for anyone and lawyers now a days cannot resist themselves.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the issue is not of medium of media and sense of responsibility should be on the lawyers about the statements they make.
"Statements like black day in the history of judiciary. Injustice has been done. These are partisan, subjective and designed statements made with a purpose," he said, adding that media records the statements without knowing whether the person speaking is telling the truth or not.
The bench said that media has the right to know but there should not be obstruction of justice.
Terming Attorney General as 'Bhismapitama'--a character in Mahabharat, Mehta said that he is magnanimous and does not want punishment for Bhushan but Union of India wants punishment for him, so that there is a deterrence.
"We have held in our recent verdict that contempt is 'Brahmastra' which should not be used frequently. Every thing cannot be restored. Once dignity is lost nothing remains. It will be a humiliating life," it said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
