LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr. (Suo Motu Contempt, Sentencing Order)

Contempt Petition (Criminal) · 2020 INSC 522Decided 31 Aug 2020
Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice Krishna Murari

Background

Advocate Prashant Bhushan had already been held guilty of criminal contempt of court by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated 14 August 2020 (2020 INSC 489), over two tweets criticising the judiciary and a sitting/former Chief Justice. This later order deals only with the question of what sentence to impose. At the sentencing hearing, his counsel argued for leniency, citing his 35 years of public-interest litigation work, the vagueness of the "scandalising the court" contempt offence, free-speech protections, and the defence of truth, and urged that mere imprisonment or disbarment be avoided.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that while fair criticism of the judiciary is permissible and judges must not be hypersensitive to criticism, Bhushan's conduct, including giving the press advance copies of his statements in a pending matter and refusing to express any regret despite repeated requests, including from the Attorney General, went beyond permissible limits and amounted to an attempt to pressure the Court through the media. It rejected arguments that the contempt law was impermissibly vague or that truth alone was an automatic defence in these circumstances. Despite finding the offence serious enough to justify imprisonment or debarment, the Court said it was exercising "magnanimity" and sentenced Bhushan to a nominal fine of Re. 1 (one rupee), to be paid by 15 September 2020, failing which he would undergo three months' simple imprisonment and be barred from practising in the Supreme Court for three years.

Lesson Learnt

Free speech does not give lawyers or citizens unlimited licence to make public statements attacking the judiciary while a matter is still pending before the court, especially statements released to the press in advance, but courts can still choose to show restraint in sentencing even after finding someone guilty of contempt.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case