‘Faith in judiciary relies on actions, not criticism’

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday lamented that the practice of publicly criticising the top court was growing, even as stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra responded to its contempt notice by asserting that if “powerful people and institutions continued to show their inability to face rebukes and criticism, we would be reduced to a country of incarcerated artists and flourishing lapdogs”.

Responding to a show-cause notice over his tweets on the Supreme Court and its judges, Kamra stated in his affidavit that while he never intended to diminish the people’s faith in the highest court of the democracy, “the public faith in the judiciary is founded on the institution’s own actions and not on any criticism or commentary about it”.

The suggestion that his tweets could shake the foundation of the most powerful court in the world, Kamra said, was an “overestimation” of his abilities.

Kamra added that he believed even judges knew no protection from jokes, and added: “If this court believes I have crossed a line and wants to shut down my Internet indefinitely, then I too will write Happy Independence Day post cards every 15th August, just like my Kashmiri friends.”

Choosing not to apologise to get out of the contempt case, the stand-up comedian maintained: “I may disagree with many decisions by many courts in many matters, but I promise the bench that I will respect any decision that comes my way with a broad smile. I will not vilify this bench or the Supreme Court in this matter specifically because that would actually be contempt of court.” A conviction under the Contempt of Court Act is punishable by up to six months in prison, apart from a fine of up to ₹2,000.

On Friday, a Supreme Court bench, headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, took up petitions against stand-up comedian Kamra and illustrator Rachita Taneja, that have accused the duo of denigrating the judiciary and judges through their tweets.

The petitions were filed after attorney general KK Venugopal gave his consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against both the comic artists. Both the cases were listed for hearing one after the other on Friday. The show-cause notices of contempt had also been issued to Kamra and Taneja on the same day of the AG’S approval, December 18.

When Taneja’s case was taken up, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for her, said that the foundation of the Supreme Court was based on a much stronger edifice and that criticism of a decision of the court could not be contempt.

But the bench, which also included justices R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, retorted: “What is this happening? This [criticism] is growing everyday. Everyone is doing it now.”

At this, Rohatgi submitted that Taneja was a 25-year-old woman, who had only questioned why the top court prioritised bail hearing of a journalist (Arnab Goswami) over various other cases.

The court asked Rohatgi to file a formal reply to the showcause notice instead of making verbal arguments. Rohatgi agreed, but also requested the bench to segregate Taneja’s case from Kamra’s matter so that they could be heard separately. The court accepted this plea and gave Rohatgi three weeks to file a reply.

Meanwhile, Kamra’s case was deferred by two weeks after advocate Nishant Katneshwarkar, representing petitioners, asked for time to submit their replies to Kamra’s affidavit.

Kamra, in his affidavit, implored the apex court to recognise that being offended was a necessary incident to the exercise of the right to free speech. He too, had questioned the top court’s prioritisation of the Goswami case. “These jokes are not reality, and do not claim to be so. Most people do not react to jokes that don’t make them laugh; they ignore them like our political leaders ignore their critics. That is where the life of a joke must end...i do not believe that any high authority, including judges, would find themselves unable to discharge their duties only on account of being the subjects of satire or comedy,” his affidavit said.

It further read: “We are witnessing an assault on the freedom of speech and expression, with comedians like Munawar Faruqui being jailed for jokes that they have not even made, and school students being interrogated for sedition...i believe there is a growing culture of intolerance in the country where taking offence is seen as a fundamental right.”

THE COMEDIAN IMPLORED SC TO RECOGNISE THAT BEING OFFENDED WAS A NECESSARY INCIDENT TO THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH