Cfd statement on prashant

1. CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY
F-1/A-75, Shalimar Garden Main, Sahibabad-201005
Dt.18th
August,2020
PRESS STATEMENT
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION AGAINST PRASHANT BHUSHAN
SHOULD BE RECALLED.
It is a matter of grave concern that the Supreme Court has held the
well known lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court on account
of his two tweets. The judgment of the Supreme Court is an assault on the
freedom of speech. Prashant had tweeted two tweets; in the first tweet dt.
27th
June,2020 he said, “When historians in future look back at the last 6
years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a
formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court
in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.” The
second June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI S.A. Bobde riding a Harley
Davidson motorcycle, and it was said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle
belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet,
at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their
fundamental right to access Justice!”
Supreme Court held that the tweets has the effect of destabilising the very
foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy and it has to be
dealt with iron hand. It further said that it took umbrage at Bhushan linking
the Supreme Court to an ‘Emergency-like situation’ and thus held his tweets
false, malicious and scandalous.
However, the Supreme Court seems to be unaware that it is not only
Prashant Bhushan who is linking the functioning of the present Supreme
Court to an ‘emergency’- like situation but large number of people are making
this comparison. During the said ‘emergency’ (June 1975-March 1977) the
fundamental rights of the citizens were suspended and those who criticized
the moves of the government were sent to jail under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act,1971 (MISA). At present large number of citizens who
criticize the government are being arrested on one pretext or the other
without formal declaration of ‘emergency’. Though such arrests are not on
the same scale as that of emergency, but the methodology and arbitrariness
is the same and authoritarian trends are clearly visible. Most of them are
unable to get any relief from the courts as happened in the ‘emergency’.
Habeas corpus petitions of Kashmiri citizens are pending undecided in the
Supreme Court for an year.
During emergency large number of detainees had filed habeas corpus
petitions in different High courts on the ground that their detention was
malafide. This contention was upheld by seven High courts but the
Government challenged the said decisions before the Supreme Court
which with majority of four to one reversed the orders of the High Courts

2. on 28th
April 1976, what has come to be known as ADM Jabalpur Versus
Shukla case (AIR 1976 SC 1207) holding that if the executive violates the
rule of law and deprives any person of life or personal liberty by a grossly
malafide action, neither the aggrieved party nor the judiciary can do anything
in the matter. Justice V.M. Tarkunde (Retd.), the then General Secretary of
the Citizens For Democracy (CFD), immediately wrote an article ‘JUDICIAL
SUICIDE’, published in the June 1976 issue of ‘The Radical Humanist’,
stating that the day 28th
April 1976 would become known as the blackest
day in the judicial history of India. He further wrote : ’Since maintenance of
the rule of law is the sole function of the judiciary, a declaration by the
Supreme Court of its inability to discharge that function in the critical area of
executive encroachment on personal liberty can legitimately be described as
little short of judicial suicide.” The copies of that issue were sent to each
judge of the Supreme Court and to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts.
That judgment in ADM Jabalpur case had angered large number of
people. When the emergency was revoked, some advocates had issued
statements while Bar Association of Bombay High Court had passed a
resolution declaring that that the four judges who delivered the majority
judgment were ‘cowards’. These statements were published by the Times
of India. The said four judges were still sitting judges in the Supreme Court.
A contempt of court petition was filed. The majority of two judges (Untwala
and Kailasam J.J.) disposed of the matter observing :”This is not a fit case
where formal proceeding should be drawn up.” Chief Justice Beg who was
one of the four judges in the ADM Jabalpur case and was of the opinion that
a case of contempt had been made out also signed the majority judgment
stating,“ However, as two of my learned brethren are of the view that we should
ignore even such news items and not proceed further, I can do no more than to
state the reasons for my dissent before signing a common order dropping these
proceedings.”. (AIR 1978 SC 489 : Shri Sham Lal Vs. Unknown). Same approach
was shown by the other benches of the Supreme Court relating to such statements.
The then judges exhibited a dignified approach in ignoring the said
contemptuous statements calling the sitting judges as ‘cowards’. The judgment in
ADM Jabalpur case has been regarded as the most shameful one in the judicial
history of India and has recently been over-ruled. At present serious issues of public
importance such as challenge to ‘CAA-2019’, the abrogation of articles ‘370’ and
‘35-A’ of the Constitution, several ‘habeas corpus’ petitions etc. are pending in the
Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court took umbrage when
Prashant Bhushan tried to link the present functioning of the Supreme Court to the
‘emergency like’ situation. The tweets ought to have been ignored. Holding him
guilty and awarding him any punishment are not going to do any service to the
administration of justice or enhance the majesty of law. The tweets made by Prashant
Bhushan were expression of anguish felt by thousands of victimized citizens who

3. are at the receiving end of the brutal state power and who cry and hope for judicial
protection. The people look upon the Supreme Court as citadel of justice and
bulwark of democracy. We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will continue to
play its assigned role with fearlessness, fairness and objectivity. We urge upon the
Hon’ble Court to ignore the tweets and recall its decision holding Prashant Bhushan
guilty.
S.R.Hiremath N.D.Pancholi Anil Sinha Manimala Arun Maji
Chairperson General Secretary Secretaries
Ramendra Nath, Ramsharan, Shalu Nigam, Ramesh Awasthi, Mahipal Singh,
(Members)