The Supreme Court of India will tomorrow (August 20) hear what senior lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan has to say about a suo motu (Court on its own) contempt of court case against him.

If the court, which is itself the prosecutor and the judge, is not satisfied with the explanation given by him, it can award him punishment of upto six months in jail and impose a fine. It has the power to even suspend his license to practise law.

All this because the Supreme Court, considered time be the strongest and central pillar of the three pillars of democracy which also include legislature and the executive, is feeling threatened by about 100 words written in two Twitter posts by Prashant Bhushan.

Since Twitter app is used by less than two per cent of the population of the country, let me reproduce the two “offending” tweets. Frankly almost all newspapers and magazines were forced to reproduce these tweets to inform their readers.

The Twitter app allows only short comments and the first comment by him on June 27 was : “When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”

Two days later, on June 29, he shared an image of CJI Bobde sitting on a Harley Davidson superbike, commenting that the CJI was sitting on a bike belonging to a BJP leader without a mask or helmet, at a time when the Supreme Court was “denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice” because it was in lockdown mode.

It took more than 20 days for “my lords” to realise that “enormous damage” has been caused to the image of the judiciary by those comments and three of them, Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari initiated suo motu a contempt case against Bhushan on July 21.

Evidently the first tweet my Prashant Bhushan was written about the controversies in which the past four Chief justices of India had found themselves in. These include the controversies over formation of benches by a particular CJI.

Four serving judges had even held a press conference to voice their concern. It was the first ever press conference addressed by judges of the highest court of India.

The conduct of the four chief justices mentioned by Prashant Bhushan had indeed remained a matter of controversy.

One of the judges who was in the press conference later became the Chief Justice of India and after his retirement was inducted as a Rajya Sabha member leading to much speculations and controversy.

As regards the second tweet, the Supreme Court bench which had initiated the criminal contempt of court proceedings, said the first part of the tweet (about the current Chief Justice of India) riding a motorcycle without helmet and without a mask, was a “personal comment” but what angered the Supreme Court judges was the last half sentence which said the Chief Justice was testing a bike at a time when the Supreme Court was “denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice” because it was in lockdown mode.

The contention of the three judges is that the Supreme Court had never denied fundamental rights of the citizens during the lockdown as it had dealt with several cases through virtual hearings.

By convicting a senior lawyer with 30 years standing who has played an active role in issues relating to the general public, and being a staunch critic of the present government, the Supreme Court has certainly not enhanced its prestige. With the immense power enjoyed by the Supreme Court, it is seen like swatting a fly.

The comments, which do not appear to be too damaging, were confined to a few lakhs and infact very few had noticed these but with Supreme Court taking up the issue, these have reached crores of citizens.

While convicting Prashant Bhushan for contempt, the judges said that the tweets had the “tendency to shake the confidence of the public at large in the institution of judiciary and the institution of the CJI and undermining the dignity and authority of the administration of justice,” and the court held that it “has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of Indian democracy.”

Taking the comments too seriously the court said if such an attack is not dealt with appropriately, it can affect “the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations.”

The extremely harsh stand taken by the top court has come in for criticism. It is pointed out that several countries have abolished contempt of court laws.

The argument is that if all other sections including the government could be criticised, so could be the judiciary. Judges taking up cases against their critics and then punishing them is like acting as prosecutor and judge at the same time.

Top jurists say that the judiciary should have broad shoulders to ignore such stray criticism. How can the judiciary claim to be a strong pillar of democracy when it feels threatened by merely a few sentences written in social media.

Judiciary must be confident about itself and its own dignity. A few stray comments should not make it feel threatened. It is more important for the judiciary to strive for its own dignity and gain respect and admiration of the people rather than take on individuals to settle scores.

Convicting a senior lawyer has not exalted its position. Any severe punishment after the hearing today is unlikely to add to the prestige of the court.