J.R. PRASHAR, ADVOCATE AND ORS. versus PRASANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND ORS.

J.R. PRASHAR, ADVOCATE AND ORS. versus PRASANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE AND ORS.

The Court held that holding a dharna as a form of protest against a court judgment may not per se amount to contempt unless court access is hindered or proceedings disrupted. Allegations of shouting abusive slogans or ascribing lack of integrity to judges cannot be accepted based solely on the petitioner's statements without corroborating evidence, especially in light of procedural defects and denials in respondents' affidavits. Comments in Respondent No.2's affidavit were general and protected as fair criticism; Respondent No.3's impugning of motives may prima facie constitute contempt, and prescribed notice is to be issued for that respondent.

Parties
Petitioner: J.R. Prashar; Petitioner Advocate: Altaf Ahmed; Petitioner Advocate: Romy Chacko; Petitioner Advocate: P. Parmeshwaran; Petitioner Advocate: Sanjay Hegde; Respondent: Prashant Bhushan; Respondent Advocate: Shanti Bhushan; Respondent Advocate: Ms. Kamini Jaiswal; Respondent Advocate: Ms. Shomila Bakshi; Respondent Advocate: Ms. Aishwarya Rao; Respondent: Ms. Arundhati Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 2 of 2001 / Disposition of Contempt Petition
Outcome
Petition dismissed against all three respondents; notice to respondent No.3 to show cause for contempt for statements in her affidavit.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Procedure for Contempt Proceedings, Judicial Criticism, Fair Comment
Constitutional Law Judicial Procedure Contempt of Court Procedure for Contempt Proceedings Judicial Criticism Fair Comment

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.R. Prashar

Petitioner

Altaf Ahmed

Petitioner Advocate

Romy Chacko

Petitioner Advocate

P. Parmeshwaran

Petitioner Advocate

Sanjay Hegde

Petitioner Advocate

Prashant Bhushan

Respondent

Shanti Bhushan

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Shomila Bakshi

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Aishwarya Rao

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Arundhati Roy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 2 of 2001 / Disposition of Contempt Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether holding a dharna in protest against a court judgment amounts to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether shouting slogans and ascribing lack of integrity to judges constitutes contempt
  3. 3 Whether comments on use of contempt powers by superior courts amount to contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that holding a dharna as a form of protest against a court judgment may not per se amount to contempt unless court access is hindered or proceedings disrupted. Allegations of shouting abusive slogans or ascribing lack of integrity to judges cannot be accepted based solely on the petitioner's statements without corroborating evidence, especially in light of procedural defects and denials in respondents' affidavits. Comments in Respondent No.2's affidavit were general and protected as fair criticism; Respondent No.3's impugning of motives may prima facie constitute contempt, and prescribed notice is to be issued for that respondent.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed against all three respondents; notice to respondent No.3 to show cause for contempt for statements in her affidavit.

Orders

  • Proceedings against all three respondents dismissed.
  • Notice to respondent No.3 to show cause why she should not be proceeded against for contempt.