Is There No Conflict Of Interest In Courts Deciding On Contempt?
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2020-08-20 12:46:43
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
Prasant Bhushan has asked the Supreme Court to defer the sentencing in the contempt case against him in which he was held guilty. He has said that he will be filing a review petition against the order. Meanwhile, several prominent citizens, including more than 700 lawyers from all over India, have supported the court for holding Bhushan guilty. Going against the tide of editorials critical of the Supreme Court order, the Free Press Journal (FPJ) has applauded the court for taking a stand against those who have made it a habit to malign the judiciary.
There are two things that need to be considered in the whole episode. The first is the tendency of some people to try and browbeat the court into accepting their point of view and being biased and personal in their criticism if it is not accepted. There is obviously an urgent need to stop this. The second is the conflict of interest in having the Supreme Court decide what comes under contempt and how the alleged offender is to be punished. There is also an urgent need to work out a separate mechanism for this.
As the FPJ editorial had stressed, Bhushan has made an industry out of filing PILs and is so full of himself that he can never accept decisions that go against him. He has also made it a habit of launching personal attacks on the court and individual judges. When was the last time Bhushan offered a reasoned critique of a Supreme Court judgment? His criticisms often adopt a malicious stance and smack of personal attacks. In that sense, it is not totally incorrect to punish him. This writer had previously written that habitual offenders should never be spared.
But it is not the punishment of Bhushan that others are protesting against. It is the way the Supreme Court takes up contempt cases and decides the guilt and punishment. In the BCCI case, the court had made much of conflict of interest and had said no one can sit on judgment in his/her own case as it went against the principles of natural justice. Then how can the court sit in judgment in contempt cases? Does it not become the judge, jury and executioner in such cases? Should we not have an independent authority, like perhaps the Lok Pal, to decide on contempt cases?
