Will examine if lawyers can criticise court, judge in pending case: SC

The Supreme Court, hearing contempt pleas of the Centre and Attorney General against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Wednesday, said it would examine if a person can criticise the court in a sub-judice matter to influence the public opinion which may interfere with the course of justice.

The top court said now-a-days it has become a trend for the lawyers appearing in a sub-judice matter to make statements in the media and participate in TV debates.

It said the court is not averse to media reporting of cases but lawyers appearing in sub-judice matters should restrain themselves from making public statements.

The court said freedom comes with responsibility and judiciary needs to be protected from public opinion.

The remarks were made by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha while hearing the contempt petitions filed by AG K K Venugopal and the Centre against Bhushan for his tweets in which he had said that government appeared to have misled the top court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of meeting of the high-powered Selection Committee headed by the Prime Minister.

The bench sought reply from Bhushan, who was present in the court room and accepted the notice, within three weeks.

"As the issue concerned is vitally important that whether in a matter, which is sub-judice, is it open for anyone to criticize the court to influence the public opinion which may tend to interfere with the course of justice. We deal it appropriate to hear at length," the bench said, posting the matter for further hearing on March 7.

At the outset, Venugopal pointed that when the matter challenging the appointment of former interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao was pending, Bhushan had gone public and made a statement that government has allegedly misled the court by producing a fabricated document.

"This affects me as I have produced the documents before the court. He (Bhushan) cannot go on in public saying that these were fabricated document," Venugopal said and referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets.

"All I am seeking is that an end has to be put to this. It is the pending matter. It is being done. No one can go on making statements in a sub-judice matter. This is the right time that court settle this issue. Although I am not seeking punishment for my learned friend (Bhushan) but I want an end to this," he said.

He added senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who has appeared in the matter, has written an article that no contempt was made out. "Is that justified?"