ANR. (Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020) AUGUST 14 & Ors. v. The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & another (1974) 1 SCC 374 & Ors.

of publication would also be one of the factors that requires to be taken into consideration while considering the question of good faith. Another circumstance is, the person who makes such a statement. The alleged contemnor No.1 has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of the democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of the judiciary and especially its accountability. The alleged contemnor being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice. The alleged contemnor No. 1 is expected to act as a responsible officer of this Court. The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. It cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest. [Paras 69 and 70][506-D-H]

2.10 The Indian judiciary is not only one of the 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 the 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. There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary. 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. [Para 71][507-B-E]

2.11 Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens in the country with the highest esteem. The judiciary is considered as a last hope when a citizen fails to get justice anywhere. The Supreme Court is the epitome of the Indian judiciary. An attack on the Supreme Court does not only have the effect of tending an A B C D E F G H 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R. ordinary litigant of losing the confidence in the Supreme Court but also may tend to lose the confidence in the mind of other judges in the country in its highest court. A possibility of the other judges getting an impression that they may not stand protected from malicious attacks, when the Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be ruled out. As such, in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that the Court is required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the judges or of the institution of administration of justice. However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation of the institution of the judiciary and thereby damaging the very foundation of the democracy. [Para 72][507-E-H; 508-A]

2.12 The Indian Constitution has given a special role to the constitutional courts of this country. The Supreme Court is a protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens, as also is endowed with a duty to keep the other pillars of democracy i.e. the Executive and the Legislature, within the constitutional bounds. If an attack is made to shake the confidence that the public at large has in the institution of judiciary, such an attack has to be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that it may be better in many cases for the judiciary to adopt a magnanimously charitable attitude even when utterly uncharitable and unfair criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide concern for improvement. However, when there appears some scheme and design to bring about results which have the tendency of damaging the confidence in our judicial system and demoralize the Judges of the highest court by making malicious attacks, those interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial and unbending justice will have to stand firmly. If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations. Fearless and impartial courts of justice are the bulwark of a healthy democracy and the confidence in them cannot be permitted to be impaired by malicious attacks upon them. If the Court considers the attack on the judge A B C D E F G H IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. 451 or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream. [Para 73][508-A-F]

2.13 The summary jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised not to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge, who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is sought to be shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, thus amount to committing of ‘criminal contempt’. [Paras 74 and 75][508-F-H; 509-A-D] Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1953] SCR 1169; In Re: Hira Lal Dixit and two others [1955] 1 SCR 677; C. K. Daphtary & Ors. v. O. P. Gupta & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 626 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 76; Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & another (1974) 1 SCC 374 : [1974] 2 SCR 282 – followed. E. M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) 2 SCC 325 : [1971] 1 SCR 697; Re: S. Mulgaokar (1978) 3 SCC 339 : [1978] 3 SCR 162; *P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Others (1988) 3 SCC 167 : [1988] 3 SCR 547; Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar (1993) Supp 1 SCC 529; In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 : [1995] 2 SCR 638; D. C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 : [1996] 3 Suppl. A B C D E F G H 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R. A B C D