Do not malign judges, says SC
Vilification of judges and the judiciary would lead to the destruction of the system of administration of justice and will not come within the ambit of fair criticism, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao said accusing judges of corruption results in denigration of the institution which has an effect of lowering the confidence of the public in the system of administration of justice.
The Bench said, “Every citizen has a fundamental right to speech, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Contempt of Court is one of the restrictions on such right. We are conscious that the power under the Act has to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. If there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, the Courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the offender for committing contempt.”
The appellants Het Ram Beniwal and Bhuramal Swami who belonged to the CPM were convicted and sentenced for two months and a fine of `2,000 for contempt of court for scandalising the judiciary by the Rajasthan HC. They mo-ved the apex court for quashing this judgement. They had criticised the judges who granted anticipatory bail in a murder case.
Prashant Bhushan, who argued for the appellants said the statements can only be said as fair criticism and will not amount to contempt of court.
However, Aishwarya Bhati, who was appointed amicus curiae, justified the High Court judgment and said it does not call for any interference.
Disposing the appeal, the Bench said the statements made by the appellants are not only derogatory but also have the propensity to lower the authority of the Court.
A perusal of the allegations made by the appellants cannot be termed as fair criticism on the merits of the case. They indulged in an assault on the integrity of the judges of the High Court by making baseless and unsubstantiated allegations. They are not entitled to seek shelter under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
After considering the facts of the case including the fact that the contemptuous statements were made in 2001, the court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence to only payment of fine of `2,000 each.