Contempt Proceedings Against Artist Rachita Taneja

SYNOPSIS

The Attorney General of India Sri KK Venugopal has consented to initiate contempt proceedings against the artist and founder of the Sanitary Panel, Rachita Taneja for her tweets which allegedly defame and undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and purport it to be 'owned up’ by the ruling party. One post also targets the ex-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi for allegedly delivering the judgment in Ram Janmbhoomi case in favor of the ruling party in exchange for a spot in the upper house of the Parliament. While one post depicted journalist Arnab Goswami referring to the Supreme Court and the ruling party as his 'father’, one other post went on to the extent of calling the Supreme Court as the Sanghi Court of India.The proceedings have been initiated under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3(c) of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, now, with the consent of the Attorney General.

THE PRESENT CASE

The plea for initiation of the present contempt proceedings was filed by one Anurag Kashyap, a 5th year law student, through his Advocate Namit Saxena, against the artist and founder of the Sanitary Panel, Rachita Taneja. The alleged contemnor is a netizen, having a huge fan base on social media, with over ninety thousand followers on her Instagram account “Sanitary Panel”. She is widely known for drawing caricatures using stick figures and scripting sarcastic commentary on current affairs, which in her words, are an effective way to communicate and break societal taboos.

The artist recently tweeted three posts which caught significant attention on social media, for they were allegedly undermining the independence of judiciary in the country.The complainant herein,has alleged that “the three alleged posts”, which she tweeted,“in the form of cartoons/ caricatures have shaken the public trust and confidence in the judicial system of our constitutionaldemocracy by directly attacking and making insinuations against the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.”Now one may wonder, what exactly it was in the posts that put this artist in such a plightfulsituation.

The first caricature depicted journalist Arnab Goswami referring to the Supreme Court and the ruling party BJP as his 'father’, and the Supreme Court putting an arm around his shoulder, implying that it was obvious for the Supreme Court to provide him some fatherly 'warmth’ and 'protection’, and ensure his bail in his ongoing case.In the words of AG, the tweet was clearly calculated to undermine the public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court of India.

In the second caricature, the word 'Supreme’, in Supreme Court, was replaced with 'Sanghi’, an expression used to denote the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS), thus, rephrasing the Court’s name as the 'Sanghi Court of India’, and the Tricolor, waving above the Court, was replaced with a Saffron flag of the RSS, implying that the Supreme Court is no more an independent institution, and that it works merely to appease the RSS and the ruling party BJP. It can also be taken as a reference to the Court’s judgment in the Ram Janmbhoomi case, wherein, it ruled in favor of building a temple on the disputed site.

The third caricature wasin derogation to the ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, and again made a direct reference to the Ram Janmbhoomi case, depicting that the judgment of the Supreme Court was a bargain in favor of the BJP, in exchange for a seat in the Rajya Sabha. It referred to the fact that the ex-CJI headed the bench presiding over the case, and that immediately after expiration of his tenure as CJI, he was nominated by President Ram Nath Kovind (formerly a member of BJP) to a seat in Rajya Sabha. The plea in Supreme Court reads that “not only is this post extremely defamatory to the institution of judiciary but is highly contemptuous with the use of the expression 'business' to denote dispensation of justice and portrays the entire Supreme Court in bad light."

LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SUPRME COURT

In the present case, the complainant moved the Supreme Court under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Section 15(1)(b) of the former act allows any person to move the Supreme Court or a High Court with a complaint against criminal contempt of the respective court, after taking the consent in writing either of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, if in relation to Supreme Court, or of the Advocate General of the State concerned, if in relation to a High Court.

Other provisions in the same section also allow the Court to take cognizance of a case either on its own motion, or on a motion made by the Attorney General (for Supreme Court) or the Advocate General of State concerned (for a High Court). The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, on the other hand, are rules enacted for effective implementation of the act, and its Rule 15(c) lays a similar provision, requiring a complainant to seek the written consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General for initiating proceedings against criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

Recently, a similar matter came into limelight when the Attorney General gave consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the famous comedian and YouTuber Kunal Kamra for making similar derogatory posts against the Supreme Court and the present CJI S.A. Bobde. On a first impression, these may be purported as curtailment of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, which wouldn’t exactly be wrong, in view of the present turmoil in the country, caused due to the friction between the rightist ideology of present government and the liberalized views of youth.

However, on a closer examination, such moves are necessary on part of the Judiciary and the State since it is their duty to maintain the dignity of courts and the confidence of general public in it, both domestically and on international platforms. Along with providing a bunch of freedoms, Article 19 has also laid down clear restrictions on their use, one such restriction being on the ground of relation to defamation and contempt of courts.If a post made publically, just to express a mere 'perception’, gravely undermines the working of judiciary and/or causes its image to lower in the eyes of mass population, it becomes a necessity to take appropriate actions for restoring the faith of the citizens in the courts of the country.