Declare there is no Freedom of Speech and Expression vis-a-vis pending matters, final judgments of Court: PIL in Supreme Court

A PIL filed before the Supreme Court seeks a declaration that there shall be no freedom of speech and expression with respect to subjudice matters and final orders and judgments passed by the courts, except to the extent of fair and true reporting..This petition filed by an Advocate takes objection to lawyers, particularly some Senior Advocates, who "consume Court's precious time" and then express their displeasure with the outcome of court proceedings in the public domain. .It is alleged that a trend is growing where a set of lawyers criticise the judges and the judiciary while directly or indirectly imputing motives on the judges for passing a verdict in a specific way. These acts prima facie constitute contempt of court, the plea claims.."Though these acts are prima facie criminal contempts; not all end up in contempt proceedings. Because if they would, this court would be taking up nothing but contempt matters.".The PIL draws attention to a recent incident where Congress leader and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram took to social media to express his thoughts and opinions on the case concerning the Rajasthan political crisis which was being heard by the Rajasthan High Court..When the Rajasthan High Court requested the Speaker of Rajasthan Assembly not to proceed with the show cause notices issued by him to the 19 rebel MLAs and the Supreme Court declined to stay this order of the High Court, Chidambaram took to Twitter to express his thoughts. .Chidambaram's tweets highlighted a 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in which it was held that the Tenth Schedule stipulates that disqualification petitions will not be subject to judicial review at any stage prior to the final decision of the Speaker..However, the petitioner avers that these "apparently innocuous" tweets made by Chidambaram impute motives on the judges. The petitioner says,."The courts grant us, Advocates, extra leeway and liberty to freely speak our minds because we are men of law. But being a lawman – and not a layman – is a great responsibility. We have a duty towards society. We cannot go on cutting roots of the very system that nourishes us and misuse our liberty for our selfish ends.".While criticising the judgments on points of law is fair and healthy criticism and also a sign of a mature democracy, it is unhealthy to impute motives to the judges, the petitioner argues. He adds,"...the ill-effect is particularly exponential when a learned Advocate – more so one linked with a political party – does it.".The petitioner, Dr. Subhash Vijayran, therefore asks,."Till what time is this Hon'ble Court going to tolerate this unhealthy practice of maligning the courts and its Judges by the disgruntled and those with ulterior motives?".The petition prays that the Court declare that there is no freedom of speech and expression as regards pending matters and final orders and judgments passed except to the extent of fair and accurate reporting of proceedings before the Court "in a manner that does not directly or indirectly impute motives/ bias to the judges/court."."Doing otherwise, directly or indirectly, would bring disrepute to the judiciary, and shake people’s confidence in the system. If anyone has any grievance, he has the right to move the courts through appropriate proceedings. Ranting out in the media and imputing motives/bias on the judges is neither good for the system nor is the solution to the grievances of the aggrieved."