Free Courses Sale ends Soon, Get It Now
Context: The Supreme Court’s order finding advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court reflects poorly on the institution’s tolerance of criticism.
Background:
The judgment of a three-judge Bench on the suo motu contempt proceedings against Mr. Bhushan hardly adds to the dignity and majesty of the Court that it ostensibly sets out to uphold.
In the 108-page opinion that largely draws upon past judgments delineating the circumstances in which the Court will act in aid of its institutional reputation and authority, there is little more than a perfunctory analysis leading to the finding that the tweets amount to criminal contempt.
Problem in the judgment:
Conclusion:
There is some inadvertent irony in the Court’s claim that allowing Mr. Bhushan’s remarks to go unpunished would lower the country’s image in the comity of nations. The highest court built its stalwart fame on stellar judgments and record of fearless independence. If at all it falls in the estimation of the world now, it may only be because of a growing perception of judicial evasion, self-imposed reticence and quiet acquiescence in the face of executive power.
Reference:
© 2024 iasgyan. All right reserved