Supreme Court in a surprise Verdict holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of Contempt of Court
Supreme Court in a surprise verdict holds Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty for Contempt of Court for his statements on 2009 according to the witnesses and the hearings
New Delhi: The Supreme Court in a surprise move has given a verdict holding the senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his statements criticizing the Supreme Court in 2009.
The case was filed as a suo moto by the Supreme Court which means that the case was filed by the Supreme Court itself. The case involves several Tweets made by Prashant Bhushan criticizing the Supreme Court and also some judges of the Supreme Court.
This was considered as a contempt of Court as it was violating the power and also the rights of Court. The court first issued a show-cause notice to Prashant Bhushan on July 22 seeking a reply to the tweets he has filed and he filed a petition recalling the order which was dismissed by the Supreme Court thereon.
This led to the tussle between the Supreme Court and the Advocate Prashant Bhushan who said that his criticism was directed towards the judges of the Supreme Court and does not constitute the Contempt of Court.
These Arguments were rejected which can be taken by the current judgment which holds the Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of Contempt of Court. This judgment can be considered as a violation of his right to raise an opinion that may be critical of the Supreme Court and its functioning.
This trend has been seen in recent years with several of the Supreme Court judges being biased and the people who criticized being considered as the enemy of the court and not as asking for changes. This needs to change.
The Supreme Court needs to be unbiased as it is the third Organ of administration that needs to be independent according to the Constitution and should not be biased towards the Government in its judgment and also should not function as the lapdogs of the Government.
The Supreme Court needs to function as an independent institution which needs to be maintained and people who convey the independence of the Judiciary needs to be respected.