SCRIPT

PRASHANT BHUSHAN-
In the last 6 years, democracy has been systematically destroyed in India, and the Supreme
Court has played a crucial role in this.
The Chief Justice rides a ₹50 lakh motorcycle without a mask while keeping the court under
lockdown.
I have only spoken the truth. Criticism is part of democracy
NARRATOR: Welcome to today’s moot court proceedings.
June 2020 – In the midst of a global pandemic, a controversy unfolds in India. Senior
advocate Prashant Bhushan tweets questioning the Supreme Court’s role in upholding
democracy. The Supreme Court takes Suo motu cognizance, initiating contempt proceedings
against him.
NARRATOR: All rise! The Hon’ble Supreme Court is now in session.
JUDGE: We shall now begin hearing the case of Re: Prashant Bhushan. The petitioner’s
counsel may proceed.
PETITIONER: the counsel seeks permission to address the dice, the counsel seeks
permission to approach the bench as your lordships.
My Lords, this case arises from two tweets made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, which scandalize
the Supreme Court and lower its authority in the eyes of the public. The tweets in question
were not mere criticism but attacks on the judiciary’s integrity.
The first tweet insinuated that the Supreme Court has contributed to the destruction of
democracy in India, and the second tweet cast aspersions on the Chief Justice of India. Such
statements harm public confidence in the judiciary.
JUDGE: Mr. Bhushan’s counsel may respond
RESPONDENT: My Lords, Mr. Bhushan is an advocate with an impeccable track record of
fighting for justice. His tweets were expressions of his personal opinion, which should be
protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
JUDGE: Counsel, we recognize the importance of free speech, but does it not have
reasonable restrictions? Should criticism of the judiciary be made in a manner that
undermines public confidence?
PRASHANT BHUSHAN: My Lords, I stand by my words. My tweets were not made with
malicious intent but rather out of concern for the judiciary’s role in upholding democracy. A
free democracy thrives on the ability to question those in power, including the judiciary.
PETITIONER: But Mr. Bhushan, questioning the judiciary in a manner that casts doubt on
its credibility is not mere criticism. It is an attack on the very institution that upholds the rule
of law.
RESPONDENT: My Lords, judicial independence does not mean immunity from scrutiny.
In fact, a democracy flourishes when institutions are held accountable. The tweets made by
my client should be seen in the larger context of a citizen’s right to dissent.
JUDGE: Counsel, let us examine the tweets in detail. The first tweet criticizes the role of the
Supreme Court in preserving democracy. Do you believe such statements do not influence
public perception negatively?
RESPONDENT: My Lords, public perception is shaped by judicial conduct, not by an
individual’s opinion. Mr. Bhushan’s criticism is aimed at fostering debate on judicial
accountability. Punishing him for this would set a dangerous precedent.
JUDGE: And what of the second tweet regarding the Chief Justice? It explicitly questions
the conduct of the head of the judiciary. Should such remarks not be considered an attempt to
degrade the office of the Chief Justice?
PRASHANT BHUSHAN: With due respect, My Lords, my tweet merely highlighted
concerns over perceived judicial complacency. It was not intended to be personal but rather to
reflect on the responsibilities of the judiciary in times of crisis.
PETITIONER: My Lords, freedom of speech is not absolute. The Constitution itself
provides reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The statements made by Mr. Bhushan
fall squarely within contempt as they erode trust in the judiciary.
judges, like all citizens, have the right to dignity and respect. When statements like these
circulate widely, they create a perception of bias and undermine faith in judicial decisions.
We must ask: where do we draw the line?
JUDGE: Indeed, the line between criticism and contempt is often thin. Should we allow the
judiciary to be criticized without consequences, or should we protect its dignity at the cost of
stifling legitimate dissent?
RESPONDENT: My Lords, the judiciary does not derive its credibility from the suppression
of speech but from its impartiality and wisdom in adjudicating cases. If the Supreme Court
punishes honest criticism, it risks losing moral authority.
JUDGE: That is an important point, but should we not also consider the consequences of
unfettered criticism? Would allowing such statements not set a precedent where any person
can undermine the judiciary with impunity?
RESPONDENT: My Lords, if criticism is based on facts and intended to strengthen
institutions rather than weaken them, it should be encouraged. Mr. Bhushan’s words did not
incite violence or disorder; they merely expressed dissatisfaction with judicial conduct.
My Lord, the petitioner claims that Mr. Bhushan’s tweets scandalize the court. However, we
argue that under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt can only be
punished if it substantially interferes with the due course of justice.
Mere criticism does not amount to interference. In P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988), the
Supreme Court held that fair criticism of judicial decisions is not contempt. Moreover, in
Justice Karnan’s case, the court itself noted that the judiciary is not above accountability.
Furthermore, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court emphasized
that restrictions on free speech must be narrowly interpreted. Mr. Bhushan’s tweets fall within
legitimate democratic critique and do not obstruct justice.
Therefore, under Section 13, since no real obstruction of justice has occurred, punishment for
contempt should not be imposed.”
JUDGE: But Mr. Bhushan himself has refused to retract his statements or apologize. Does
this not indicate a defiant stance rather than constructive criticism?
PRASHANT BHUSHAN: Apologizing would be dishonest on my part. I believe in my
words, and retracting them would mean I do not stand by my convictions. I have always
respected the judiciary but believe it must be held accountable.
JUDGE: what according to you would constitute an appropriate punishment
RESPONDENT: a general message to lawyers to be cautious would be enough. If the Court
were to specifically reprimand Bhushan or award him with any sentence, he would become a
martyr in his own case.
PETITIONER: in light of the arguments presented, we humbly pray that this Hon’ble
Court:
1. Hold Mr. Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for scandalizing the judiciary and attempting to
erode public confidence in the Supreme Court.
2. Impose an appropriate sentence, including fine or imprisonment, as deemed necessary
to uphold the dignity and majesty of this Hon’ble Court.
3. Issue necessary directions to prevent future incidents where reckless and baseless
allegations are made against the judiciary, ensuring public faith in the justice system is
not shaken.

RESPONDENT: WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED,
IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
DECLARE THAT:
1. the contempt proceedings against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, as his tweets fall within the realm
of fair criticism, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. Consider the principles laid down in Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
3. Uphold the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression

JUDGE: An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt
with an iron hand. The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, in our considered view,
amount to committing of criminal contempt.
The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize
the court, cannot be ignored. If such an attack is not dealt with, it may affect the national
honor and prestige in the comity of nations. While the tweet about CJI may be critical, it does
not directly obstruct the administration of justice. The judiciary, like any institution, is subject
to public scrutiny.

The faith of the citizens in the judiciary is of paramount importance. If such faith is lost due
to unwarranted attacks, the system of justice would be at stake. Judges do not have a platform
to respond to such allegations, and therefore, the duty to protect the integrity of the institution
falls upon this Court.
The tweets by the alleged contemnor (Prashant Bhushan) have the tendency to create an
impression that the highest constitutional court has played a role in the destruction of
democracy, which is not only incorrect but also amounts to an attempt to shake the
confidence of the people in the judiciary.
Mr. Bhushan is found guilty of contempt, but considering his status and the intent behind his
statements, the court imposes only a symbolic fine of ₹1. Failure to pay will result in a
simple imprisonment of three months.

PETITIONER: Obliged, My Lords.

RESPONDENT: We respect the decision but express our concerns about its implications on
free speech.”
PRASHANT BHUSHAN: I accept the verdict but maintain my stance. I will pay the ₹1 fine
as a matter of principle.
NARRATOR: lawyer and senior collegeue rajiv dhavan contributed senior advocate prashant
bhushan to pay the fine of rs 1
NARRATOR: This case raised crucial questions: Where do we draw the line between
criticism and contempt? Does judicial power protect democracy or suppress free speech? The
answer remains debatable, but one thing is clear – a healthy democracy thrives on both
accountability and respect for institutions.
The Supreme Court's decision in IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN (2020 INSC 489) marks
a significant reaffirmation of the judiciary's authority to safeguard its dignity and the integrity
of the judicial process. By distinguishing between legitimate criticism and malicious
defamation, the Court has delineated clear boundaries that protect the administration of
justice while respecting the foundational democratic principle of free speech. This judgment
not only underscores the judiciary's role as the guardian of the rule of law but also reinforces
public confidence in its impartiality and authority. Moving forward, legal practitioners and
public figures must navigate the fine line between rightful critique and actionable contempt,
ensuring that discourse around judicial institutions remains constructive and devoid of
malice.