Supreme Court deletes N Ram, Arun Shourie and Bhushan's petition before Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench; Former SC Judges opine

In an unusual development today, the plea filed by journalist N Ram, former Union Minister Arun Shourie, and Advocate Prashant Bhushan assailing the constitutionality of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been deleted..The matter was initially listed before a Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud. The Supreme Court Registry hauled up its officers for not listing the case before the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra..According to certain officers in the Supreme Court Registry, the administrative head had called the senior level assistant and the Deputy Registrar Rank officers for questioning after the plea challenging the constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts act was not listed before the Justice Arun Mishra led-bench. This Bench is currently hearing the suo motu contempt matter against Advocate Prashant Bhushan..The Registry officials were called as they had violated the "practice and procedure in use" and as "similar matters" had to be placed before the same Bench dealing with the case..Soon after the officials were pulled up, the Supreme Court causelist for August 10 reflected that the petition filed by N Ram, Prashant Bhushan and Arun Shourie was deleted from the Court of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph. .The petitioners had argued that the provision is vague and manifestly arbitrary. Therefore, they have prayed for the sub-section to be declared as unconstitutional..The provision violates the right to free speech to the extent that it is not covered under the reasonable restrictions enlisted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the petition states. It is contended that "scandalising the court" cannot be said to be covered under the ground of "contempt of court" under Article 19(2)..The Justice Arun Mishra-led Bench had recently reserved orders in the suo motu contempt petition against Bhushan after he tweeted indicating that the CJI office was responsible for the slow working of the court during COVID-19 induced lockdown..Bar & Bench spoke to some of the prominent members of the legal fraternity to understand if at all this act of listing the N Ram plea before any other Bench other than the one headed by Justice Arun Mishra was indeed a violation of established practice or not. .Justice Ruma Pal, Former Supreme Court Judge: "When there is a constitutional challenge, Article 145 comes into the picture which necessarily means that the petition needs to be heard by a bench of five judges, so in that case, whether Justice Arun Mishra or Justice Chandrachud, it makes no difference. However, these two matters are not similar matters at all and thus it can be listed before any other bench.".However, these two matters are not similar matters at all and thus it can be listed before any other benchJustice Ruma Pal.Justice AK Ganguly, Former Supreme Court Judge."The first case was a suo motu contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan as Supreme Court felt it scandalizes the court. The judgment is reserved in this. N Ram's petition challenges the constitutionality of 2(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act as it impedes Freedom of Speech and Expression. Under 19 (1)(a) one exception is contempt of court. But in this a two or three-judge bench will not do. It needs to be a five judge bench. These are also not similar matters at all. .The parties are different too and this has nothing to do with suo motu case and nobody's statement is being considered in N Ram's plea. It is a pure question of law.".Senior Advocate Vikas Singh: "This petition challenging the constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts Act can go to any bench in the Supreme Court. How can all contempt cases go to Justice Arun Mishra led bench only because he is the hearing the suo motu case? When I was President of the Bar during CJI Dipak Misra's tenure, we had got the system of roster incorporated. Under roster, the case can go to any bench. This is a completely legally untenable point by the Registry.".Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, President of the SC Bar Association: (also, Advocate Prashant Bhushan's counsel in the Suo Motu case): "Of course this plea challenging the constitutional validity of Contempt of Courts Act can be listed before any bench. Justice Arun Mishra does not have the fundamental right to preside over all contempt of court matters. This is a fresh matter and it can be listed before any bench and nothing to do with Justice Mishra. The plea has nothing to do with Advocate Bhushan and the two cases are poles apart and like apples and oranges. If Justice Chandrachud has the jurisdiction to hear constitutional validity matters then that is the end of the discussion. The bench cannot be changed and this was the basic premise of the historic judges press conference.".Senior Advocate (Did not want to be named): "If I face contempt, I will take all my defence, and the main defence is proceeding is under a statute which is invalid and for that it should engage the same bench for benefit of contemnor as it is a front line defence. But if Bhushan has not used this new plea as a defence in the suo motu case, then there can be a different bench allotted by the master of the roster.Also, this act of Registry is a direct affront on the CJI as he himself signs all the causelists which are published. In a normal scenario, this is a defence for Prashant Bhushan that if this section is itself unconstitutional then there can be no proceeding against him. So if the case is as per roster listed before Justice Chandrachud, then it's fine. But if the petitioner facing contempt seeks the indulgence of that Court saying that N Ram's plea will have a bearing in his case, then it is a different matter. This is unlikely here. The new plea is a PIL with two new parties so it must have been allotted under the roster.".(Read related stories).Suo Motu contempt case: Eight more retired Supreme Court and High Court judges pledge support for Prashant Bhushan.Prashant Bhushan invokes Section 17(5) of Contempt of Courts Act, seeks liberty to lead evidence if SC decides to proceed against him."No one can claim infallibility, including judges", Dave argues as Supreme Court reserves order in contempt case against Prashant Bhushan.Offence of "scandalizing the court" rooted in colonial objects: Plea in SC challenges constitutionality of criminal contempt provision.[BREAKING] Twitter "Withholds" Advocate Prashant Bhushan's Tweets after Suo Motu Contempt Notice by Supreme Court.Breaking: Supreme Court issues notice to Prashant Bhushan, Twitter, and AG Venugopal in suo motu contempt case filed over tweet on CJI Bobde