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

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

Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act requires that truth as a defence be both bona fide and in the public interest; on examination the contemnor’s tweets and amplified averments in his affidavit failed that twin test, were scandalous and capable of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, and thus could not be permitted as a defence; balancing offender, offence and conduct, the Court imposed a nominal fine with conditional imprisonment and debarment rather than heavier punishment.

Parties
Petitioner: Supreme Court of India; Contemnor/respondent in Person: Prashant Bhushan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 1 of 2020 / Sentencing (post Conviction)
Outcome
Contemnor convicted of criminal contempt; sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Truth as Defence Under Section 13 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Apology and Purging Contempt, Role and Duties of Advocates, Sub Judice Restrictions and Media, Sentencing and Debarment
Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Criminal Law Judicial Administration Freedom of Speech Truth as Defence Under Section 13 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Apology and Purging Contempt Role and Duties of Advocates +2 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supreme Court of India

Petitioner

Prashant Bhushan

Contemnor/respondent in Person

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 1 of 2020 / Sentencing (post Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether truth can be pleaded as a defence under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the requirements for allowing it
  2. 2 How to balance Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech with contempt powers under Article 129 and restrictions under Article 19(2)
  3. 3 Whether the defence/affidavit filed by the contemnor was bona fide and in the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act requires that truth as a defence be both bona fide and in the public interest; on examination the contemnor’s tweets and amplified averments in his affidavit failed that twin test, were scandalous and capable of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, and thus could not be permitted as a defence; balancing offender, offence and conduct, the Court imposed a nominal fine with conditional imprisonment and debarment rather than heavier punishment.

Court Disposition

Contemnor convicted of criminal contempt; sentence imposed

Orders

  • Conemnor fined Re.1/- (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry of the Supreme Court by 15.09.2020
  • If the fine is not paid by the date specified, contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months