Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that criticism of the Courts does not amount to contempt of court

CONTEMPT OF COURT PLEA AGAINST CARTOONIST: MUKUL ROHATGI SAYS MERE CRITICISM CANNOT HARM SUPREME COURT'S MAJESTY - ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

OVERVIEW

· On Friday, 29th January, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that criticism of the Courts does not amount to contempt of court.

· He was appearing for cartoonist Rachita Taneja, for her tweet criticizing the judiciary, is alleged to be contempt of court.

· Mukul Rohatgi contended that the Court's Majesty cannot fall due to a mere criticism and pointed that the foundation of the judiciary is that strong.

· He also adverted to the fact that there is an adverse public perception against the Supreme Court for having heard a case against a journalist during the vacation.

· Rohatgi was referring to the bail plea of Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, whose case was taken up during the Diwali vacation when the Court was shut.

· The three-judge bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subash Reddy, and M. R. Shah was hearing the plea seeking initiation of contempt of court against cartoonist Rachita Taneja at the request of a law student.

· Attorney General, K. K. Venugopal granted his consent for such proceedings as the tweet was portraying that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was biased by BJP.

· Justice Bhushan said that he agrees with the Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi but he pointed out the frequent occurrence of the issue.

· Cartoonist Taneja depicted a cartoon image of the Supreme Court and BJP with the caption “ Tu Janta Nahi Mera Baap Kaun Hai" (You don't know who my father is). “Also, she tweeted that - “Arnab gets bail, real journalists get jail, an independent judiciary fails.”

THE COURT HELD

The court had issued a show-cause notice to the cartoonist with a direction to file a reply within 6 weeks. The court also said no reply has been filed on behalf of Taneja. Justice Shah asked the Senior Advocate to leave a reply. To that Adv. Mukul Rohatgi replied that he will be filing the reply in 3 weeks. The Court adjourned for three weeks.

CONCLUSION

Criticism is an indirect right of fact that every citizen used to do as they are the sovereign. Everyone could criticize those issues that are relevant, in their own way. But mere contempt of court could not be encouraged as a criticism.

DO YOU THINK THE TWEET COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A MERE CONTEMPT OF A CONTEMPT OF COURT? Let us know!