Navroz Seervai on Bhushan's contempt

Navroz Seervai, who appears to be unaware that though Mrs. Gandhi lost power in 1977, she got it back in 1980 that too in such ample measure that the principle of dynastic right was more, not less, firmly established, writes re. the Bhushan case-

"The judgment is an assault on free speech and expression in the name of upholding the “dignity and majesty” of the Court in the eyes of the public.

This is nonsense. An officer of the court has been found guilty of an offense which he himself has previously spoken approvingly off in connection with the jailing of a High Court Judge.

An assault is a departure from the norm. It is per se illegal. No assault arises when a petition by one officer of the court has the effect that another officer of the court, who has broken the law, is found guilty. 

Since the law exists for the specific purpose of 'protect the dignity and majesty' of the Court, it is quite proper to punish those who break it under that rubric.

It may be that the Court should have no 'dignity and majesty'. It too can avail of free speech and say whatever it likes but, availing of free speech, everybody else can tell it to go fuck itself. Thus if the Bench says to a policeman 'why have you not done as we ordered?', he cans say 'You turned into a cat, in my honest opinion, and came and sat on my lap and said 'miaow'. In my honest opinion, the word 'miaow' means 'do whatever you like and shoot any fucking so called Judge who tries to fuck with you.' If the Court can't punish the policeman for contempt- after all he is just exercising free speech- then what can it do? Suppose it tries to arrest the policeman. He shoots its pecker off. What happens next? 

Get rid of contempt of court as a legal offense and you have also gotten rid of an effective Judiciary.

The judgment is clearly erroneous, both in its reasoning and its analysis and interpretation of the contempt jurisdiction.

Why stop there? Why not say the judgment is actually my neighbor's cat? I can see it licking its unmentionables. Chee chee! It should not engage in such cheap behavior!

Seevai can't produce any 'reasoning' or 'analysis' of the judgment. Why should he? It is a cat which is licking its unmentionables. Or so he may honestly believe.  

However, it does not come as a surprise to those familiar with the judgments of the Supreme Court on contempt, over the years.

That's a good thing. The Law should be predictable. It shouldn't come as a surprise- at least to smart people.  

Leading writers on Constitutional Law

are all utterly shit. Yeh hai India meri jaan.  

have commented on the Supreme Court being selective in deploying this power conferred upon it by the Constitution.

All Courts are selective in deploying their powers. So are all smart people. That is why they speak sensibly when appearing in a Court of Law but don't give well-reasoned speeches when talking to a cat or a potted plant. 

The differences in the cases of P. Shiv Shankar, being the Law Minister, and [EMS] Namboodiripad or Arundhati Roy are stark.

No. They are sensible.  

Much more worrying is that this judgment appears to be a calculated assault on the one segment of civil society which is familiar with what happens in Court,

How so? One member of a segment of that segment brought a case against another member of a segment of that segment. The Bench had to come down on one side of the other. 

No doubt, if the offence of contempt were abolished, one segment of a segment can physically assault another segment of that segment till it dies or runs away. 

and the conduct of judges in and out of Court, namely members of the legal profession.

Who beat up policemen in disputes about parking spaces. Lawyers are considered to be stupid and sociopathic in India. There may be one or two exceptions. But they either become Minister or Judges or rise high in the Corporate sphere.  

It is these members who can speak to the goings-on in the judiciary with a degree of intimacy that others lack.

But they are at odds with each other. The nature of their profession is adversarial. They may wish to themselves be immune from the law but if they gain such immunity the Courts will be disintermediated. Why? Everyone will claim to be an officer of the court and reject any evidence to the contrary because of its 'chilling effect' on free speech.  

The judgment will have a chilling effect on free speech generally, and that appears to be its intent,

Not the judgment but its enforcement may have that effect. But the Indian Constitution holds restrictions on free speech in the public interest to be salutary.

but it is also intended to send out a strong message to the legal profession, by making an example of Prashant Bhushan for daring to exercise his fundamental right to freedom of speech.

The message is- even if you are an unknown junior advocate you can complain against a rich dynastic lawyer and the Court will give justice. Bhushan could have exercised his freedom of speech in a lawful manner. This would have benefited him and may have helped the Bench. He chose not to. Why? Because he is a cretin. He simply does not understand the law. 

The tragedy for the country is that this will, in all probability, succeed—both in its intention and effect.

Does this silly man really think Bhushan will stop talking nonsense? No power on earth, save Death, could bring about so happy an outcome. The tragedy of the Indian legal system is that lawyers are shite.  

The judgment will be cited as precedent by the Court

Nonsense! The Court has gone by precedent, it has established no new ratio.  

to protect an institution that knows that its conduct and its position lays it open to adverse comment and criticism across the spectrum of civil society, as happened recently in it’s initial response to the migrant crisis. That is something that the Court clearly cannot tolerate, despite all its protestations to the contrary."

The Court, in a very poor country, can do little of substance. The lawyers may want it to give them all sorts of immunities. But if it does so, the rest of Society turns against it. The Bhushans themselves campaigned for brining the Bench under the authority of the Lok Pal. What is more likely is that the Executive will disintermediate the Bench if it is no longer a convenient oubliette to which to consign 'wedge issues'. 

It may be that the Bench- now that individual judges are becoming the target for scurrilous attack- will adopt a robust 'doctrine of political question' and refuse to get entangled in contentious issues. It may also insist that it is a last resort, not the first line of defense for any cause however worthy. Finally it may adopt strict rules re. the length of affidavits and moreover reject them in toto by applying an ex ungue leonem test- i.e. if one part is defective, the whole is defective.