IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

The tweets in question contained false and distorted allegations which, viewed in context and considering the extent of publication and the standing of the author, tended to scandalise the Supreme Court, undermine its authority and shake public confidence in the judiciary and therefore constituted criminal contempt; the Supreme Court may initiate suo motu contempt proceedings under Article 129 without Attorney General's consent; Twitter as intermediary was discharged on the facts.

Parties
Contemnor: Prashant Bhushan; Contemnor: Twitter Inc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 1 of 2020 / Judgment
Outcome
Alleged contemnor No.1 (Prashant Bhushan) held guilty of criminal contempt; alleged contemnor No.2 (Twitter Inc.) discharged
Legal Topics
Suo Motu Proceedings, Article 129 of the Constitution, Article 19(1) Freedom of Speech Vs. Restrictions, Fair Criticism Vs. Scandalising the Court, Intermediary Liability Under IT Act
Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Information Technology Law Criminal Contempt Suo Motu Proceedings Article 129 of the Constitution Article 19(1) Freedom of Speech Vs. Restrictions Fair Criticism Vs. Scandalising the Court +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prashant Bhushan

Contemnor

Twitter Inc.

Contemnor

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 1 of 2020 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tweets by Prashant Bhushan amounted to criminal contempt
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court can initiate suo motu contempt proceedings without the consent of the Attorney General
  3. 3 Whether Twitter as an intermediary is liable for the tweets and liable to be proceeded against

Ratio Decidendi

The tweets in question contained false and distorted allegations which, viewed in context and considering the extent of publication and the standing of the author, tended to scandalise the Supreme Court, undermine its authority and shake public confidence in the judiciary and therefore constituted criminal contempt; the Supreme Court may initiate suo motu contempt proceedings under Article 129 without Attorney General's consent; Twitter as intermediary was discharged on the facts.

Court Disposition

Alleged contemnor No.1 (Prashant Bhushan) held guilty of criminal contempt; alleged contemnor No.2 (Twitter Inc.) discharged

Orders

  • Alleged contemnor No.1 – Mr. Prashant Bhushan held guilty of criminal contempt of this Court
  • Notice issued to alleged contemnor No.2 – Twitter Inc. discharged