Thread by @Article14live

Today lawyer @pbhushan1 filed a reply to the contempt petition against him from the Supreme Court. Some highlights:

"Tweet regarding the CJI riding a motorcycle
(6 June) was made primarily to underline my anguish at the non physical functioning of the SC for the last more than 3 months, as a result of which fundamental rights of citizens, such as those in detention, those destitute & poor..."

"... and others facing serious and urgent grievances were not being addressed or taken up for redressal...The fact that he was on a motorcycle costing 50 lakhs owned by
a BJP leader had been established by documentary evidence published on social media..."

"My expressing anguish by highlighting this incongruity and the attendant facts cannot be said to constitute contempt of court. If it were to be so regarded, it would stifle free speech and would constitute an unreasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution."

"So far as the second tweet (27 June) is concerned it has 3
distinct elements, each of which is my bonafide opinion about the state of affairs in the country in the past 6 years and the role of the 3 Supreme Court and in particular the role of the last 4 CJIs..."

"The first part of the tweet contains my considered opinion that democracy has been substantially destroyed in India during the last six years. The second part is my opinion that the SC has played a substantial role in allowing the destruction of our democracy..."

"...and the third part is my opinion regarding the role of the last 4 Chief Justice’s in particular in allowing it. Such expression of opinion however outspoken, disagreeable or however unpalatable some, cannot constitute contempt of court..."

"...This proposition has been laid down by several judgments of this court and in foreign jurisdictions such as Britain, USA and Canada. It is the essence of a democracy that all institutions, including the judiciary
function for the citizens and the people of this country..."

"...they have every right to freely & fairly discuss the state of affairs of an institution & build public opinion in order to reform the institution. I submit that my criticism has been outspoken yet it has been carefully weighed & made with the highest sense of responsibility."

"raising issues...regarding manner in which 4 CJIs have used, or failed to use, their powers... to allow spread of authoritarianism, majoritarianism, stifling of dissent, political incarceration... cannot & does not amount to "scandalising or lowering authority of the court”.

"The stifling of dissent under the watch of the Supreme Court has not only been adversely commented upon by retired Judges of this very Court, but even by sitting Judges who have been part of the SC during
the tenure of the four CJIs."

Quotes Justice D Y Chandrachud speech during height of anti-#CAA_NRC stir: “Employment of state machinery to curb dissent instills fear & creates a chilling atmosphere on free speech which violates the rule of law and distracts from the constitutional vision of a plural society."

Quotes Justices Chelameshwar, Kurien Joesph, Madan
Lokur, & Ranjan Gogoi from Jan 2018: “There are many things less than desirable that have happened in the last few months… We tried to persuade the CJI that some things are not in order and he needs to take remedial measures."

"To prevent a citizen from ‘evaluating’ in Public Interest performance of any institution that is a creature of the constitution and putting it in the public domain to inform, generate a debate, build public opinion for reforms/change is violative of our right to free speech."

Refers to a variety of issues that SC failed to address adequately during tenure of CJI Justice S A Bobde, including #CAA, #DelhiRiots, #migrantworkers, "attacks on universities", stopping #4G in #Kashmir. Quotes criticism from former justices.

I could multiply these instances but I think the above cases... are enough for me to form my opinion about the role played by this Hon’ble SC in last 6 years in undermining democracy which bonafide opinion I am entitled to form, hold, & express under Article 19(1)(a)."