Prashant Bhushan Convicted for Contempt of Court.

Supreme Court convicts Prashant Bhushan:

Offensive tweets of Prashant Bhushan:

Supreme Court today convicted Prashant Bhushan, the perpetual Public interest litigator for contempt of Court. As per the orders of Supreme Court Prashant Bhushan had tweeted as under:

“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!”

(29th June 2020 at 11.37AM)

Another tweet was published in the Times of India which was made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on June 27, 2020, when he tweeted,

“When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how 3democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”

Damage Caused by Tweet:

Indian judiciary is not only one of pillars on which the Indian democracy stands but is the central pillar.The Indian Constitutional democracy stands on the bedrock of rule of law. The trust, faith and confidence of 102the citizens of the country in the judicial system is sine qua non for existence of rule of law. An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand. The tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy. The tweet clearly tends to give an impression,that the Supreme Court, which is a highest constitutional court in the country, has in the last six years played a vital role in destruction of the Indian democracy. There is no manner of doubt,that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary. We do not want to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the first part of the tweet,inasmuch as we do not want to convert this proceeding into a platform for political debate. We are only concerned with the damage that is sought to be done to the institution of administration of justice. In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.

Continue reading “Prashant Bhushan Convicted for Contempt of Court.”

The Public interest litigator Prashant Bhushan in Contempt cross heir

Scandalizing the Court is contempt:

Prashant Bhushan, the Supreme Court lawyer who is famous for filing public interest litigation in Supreme Court on almost every matter and who has difficulty in hiding his political distaste for present regime has been issued notice of show cause over his two scandalous tweets.

Offending tweets of Prashant Bhushan:

Twitter has withheld the tweets of Prashant Bhushan but Prashant’s friend Yogendra Yadav has retweeted following screenshots of the offending tweets. This is the screen shot:

Read the full order:

Full Order:

Click to access 14323_2020_33_16_23062_Order_22-Jul-2020.pdf

Right of Government to ensure better education in minority institutions of education.

Whether the provisions, namely, Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Commission Act are ultra vires and whether these provisions transgress the right of minority institutions guaranteed under the Constitution of India?

“It is difficult to comprehend that the framers of the Constitution would have given such an absolute right to the religious or linguistic minorities, which would enable them to establish and administer educational institutions in a manner so as to be in conflict with the other Parts of the Constitution. ……..The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1).” Continue reading “Right of Government to ensure better education in minority institutions of education.”

Can court consider the Report of Parliamentary Committee:

Judicial Review of Report of Parliamentary Committee:

The Division Bench expressed thus:-

“72. The controversy has to be seen from the perspective of judicial review. The basic principle of judicial review is to ascertain the propriety of the decision making process on the parameters of reasonableness and propriety of the executive decisions. We are not discussing about the parameters pertaining to the challenge of amendments to the Constitution or the constitutionality of a statute. When a writ of mandamus is sought on the foundation of a factual score, the Court is required to address the facts asserted and the averments made and what has been stated in oppugnation. Once the Court is asked to look at the report, the same can be challenged by the other side, for it cannot be accepted without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Respondents. The invitation to contest a Parliamentary Standing Committee report is likely to disturb the delicate balance that the Constitution provides between the constitutional institutions. If the Court allows contest and adjudicates on the report, it may run counter to the spirit of privilege of Parliament which the Constitution protects.

73. As advised at present, we are prima facie of the view that the Parliamentary Standing Committee  report may not be tendered as a document to augment the stance on the factual score that a particular activity is unacceptable or erroneous. However, regard being had to the substantial question of law relating to interpretation of the Constitution involved, we think it appropriate that the issue be referred to the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.‖

5. Thereafter, the two-Judge Bench framed the following questions for the purpose of reference to the Constitution Bench:-

“73.1. (i) Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court can refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee?

73.2. (ii) Whether such a Report can be looked at for the purpose of reference and, if so, can there be restrictions for the purpose of reference regard being had to the concept of parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions that Articles 105, 121 and 122 of the Constitution conceive?”

Supremacy of Constitution of India:

Continue reading “Can court consider the Report of Parliamentary Committee:”

Conundrum of article 35-A and article 370 of the Constitution of India scrapped for Good

One Nation One Constitution

Constitution of India came into effect on 26th January 1950 and it became applicable on entire territory of India except state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K for short). In respect of J&K a special provision was crafted in the Constitution called 370 and it was named a temporary provision. According to this provision, the President of India will be entitled to apply the Constitution of India to the State of J&K in such manner as it may please which means in pieces. This provision is as under:

“370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

Continue reading “Conundrum of article 35-A and article 370 of the Constitution of India scrapped for Good”

Personal Liberty and Judicial Review of Preventive Detention.

In the case in hand, the procedural safeguards are complied with. Insofar as the contention that the courts should lean in favour of upholding the personal liberty, we are conscious that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are very zealous of upholding the personal liberty of an individual. But the liberty of an individual has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people. Order of detention is clearly a preventive measure and devised to afford protection to the society.

When the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society.

Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and others (2005) 8 SCC 276, it was held as under:- Continue reading “Personal Liberty and Judicial Review of Preventive Detention.”

Karnataka Assembly Speaker prevented from ordering disqualification

The question before Supreme Court:

The issue arising in the case is whether resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly at a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should have priority in the decision making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should  have precedence over the request(s) for resignation.

The order of Supreme Court:

The imperative necessity,at this stage, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before us. Such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particularly, the no-trust motion against the present Government, which we are told is due for being taken up on 18th July, 2019.

In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon’ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon’ble Speaker may consider appropriate.

We also take the view that in the present case the discretion of the Hon’ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon’ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190 read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution. The order of the Hon’ble Speaker on the resignation issue, as and when passed, be placed before the Court.

We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or to opt to remain out of the same. Continue reading “Karnataka Assembly Speaker prevented from ordering disqualification”

Challenge to Order Framing Charge in High Court

Effect of bar of Revision

Order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated.

Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.

The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage.

[Source: Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency vs Central Bureau Of Investigation decided by SC on 28 March, 2018]

Review by court after dismissal of SLP in Supreme Court

Doctrine of Merger:

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal.

Continue reading “Review by court after dismissal of SLP in Supreme Court”

Biometric identification for adhaar card is not unconstitutional

Right of Privacy:

the   right   to   privacy   may   be justifiable   in   the   following   circumstances subject to the principle of proportionality:

(a)  Other   fundamental   rights:   The right to  privacy  must be  considered  in relation to its function in society and be   balanced   against   other   fundamental rights.

(b)   Legitimate   national   security interest.

(c)   Public   interest   including scientific   or   historical   research purposes or statistical purposes. Continue reading “Biometric identification for adhaar card is not unconstitutional”