Vilification of judges and the judiciary will lead to destruction of the justice delivery system and will not come within the ambit of fair criticism, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling on Friday, 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.”
A trade union activist of Sri Ganganagar district, Darshan Koda, was murdered on December 18, 2000. Some of the accused were granted anticipatory bail in February 2001 by the Rajasthan high court. The appellants addressed a huge gathering of their party workers in front of the collectorate at Sri Ganganagar on Februrary 23, 2001. The appellants made scandalous statements against the high court, which were published in Lok Sammat on February 24, 2001.
The appellants, Het Ram Beniwal and Bhuramal Swami, who belonged to the CPI(M) were convicted and sentenced for two months and a fine of '2,000 for contempt of court for scandalising the judiciary by the Rajasthan high court. They moved the apex court for quashing the judgment. They criticizsed the judges who granted anticipatory bail in the murder case.
Counsel 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, advocate Aishwarya Bhati, who was appointed amicus curiae, justified the high court judgment and said it does not call for any interference.
Disposing of 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. It said the appellants indulged in assault on the integrity of the judges of the high court by making baseless and unsubstantiated allegations. They are not entitled to seek relief, the Bench said.
