Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Indian constitution. It implies the right to express one’s own conviction and opinions freely by means of words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, or any other mode. It thus includes the expression of one’s idea through any communicable medium or visible representations such as gestures, signs, and the like. In a democratic country like India people ever can criticize the government for instance if in a law enacted by the legislature doesn't acceptable to the public then they have the right to express their thought they can even protest against it. But every fundamental right has a certain restriction for example protests should not affect public order as it has seen several times that people on social media exchange their ideas. debate and present their social and political views, in any way as they feel like. As we know the supreme court decides to hear a 10-year-old contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer-activist the case has been restricted in 2009 when he claimed that half of the last 16 CJI’s where corrupt. Recently his two posts on Twitter and a general comment on the role of chief justice of India in the last 6 years enable, the case to reopen. it has seen rarely when someone alleged the working of CJI or the Supreme Court, hence a detailed analysis should be carried out. Judiciary is the guardian of any constitution and resolve the dispute between two opponents.
Today the initiation of proceeding for criminal contempt of Court against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan has once again brought under the focus the necessity of focus on our end and loss this creates question mark on our Indian constitution law, this creates the question mark on our Indian Constitutional Law. First, the target is the role of some Chief Justice of India in the last 6 years in this- On 27 June, Bhushan had written about the “role of the Supreme Court” in the “destruction” of democracy during the last 6 years, and had also mentioned the “role of the last 4 CJIs” in it.
Second target on current Chief justice of India S.A Bobde based on a photograph by showing that he was not wearing mask and helmet in the lockdown- On 29 June, Bhushan had commented on Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde astride a Harley Davidson bike. He had questioned the CJI for riding a bike without a helmet and a face mask, while “he keeps the SC in lockdown mode”
According to my Opinion the first target by Mr. Prashant Bhushan is taking wrong and in the second target is right, because if our chief justice does not follow precaution of law then what we expect from the public so there is need to update the obsolete law which we have according to the era.
We have witnessed the various incidents in our past where a person when accused of some politician, a diplomat, or a person in a higher position, finds himself in grave danger. they are harassed and threatened by the officers. In the name of “scandalizing the law”, they are being called Anti-national. Living in a democratic country and still deprived of the rights of putting our opinion is actually a “scandalizing a democracy”. So many developed democratic countries like the US, UK has been abolished the concept of scandalizing the law so that the people of the country can express their opinion on a certain issue. It’s higher time in India as well to abolish the concept which prevents people from giving their opinion. The idea of a scandalizing is one of the reasons why people are losing trust on Indian judiciary system as people are not allowed to speak about people in higher rank so if they are being harassed by them they are expected to be quite as uttering a word against will cause the problem for the victim instead of the culprit. In order to make India a better place to live government to revisit the idea of “scandalizing” the contempt of the law. it should be noted that government and officials should focus on complaints rather than focusing on against whom they may have been filed. Proper inquiry should be done in order to get the trust if the accused is guilty then proper action should be taken against the person the laws should be above everybody and should be enforced equally on every individual.
But sometimes some high post person suppresses the speech of someone for their respect and ego as the case of an eminent lawyer Mr. Prashant Bhushan who raised his voice against CJI, Mr. S.A Bobde, saying that Mr. SA Bobde did not follow the instruction given by the government in the time of the pandemic. He did not wear marks while sitting on a bike going somewhere.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan said that if a judge does not follow the rules then how the public will follow the instruction it is the responsibility of our judges to follow rules so that the public also could follow the rules. But his voice was tried to suppress by Mr. S.A Bobde and He charged Mr. Prashant for this by doing this Mr. Bobde is using his power in a wrong way he has no right to stop anyone from showing his/her thoughts. it also shows that maybe he does not have any other important case to solve. it seems an important case for him than any other cases like the case of an electoral bond, the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the case of rape, murder, and many more. The judicial system should use its power and authority for those cases which has been in a painting for much time as a case of Raja Maan Singh and verdict has come after 39 years which is too long.
If anyone raises his voice against anyone within limits then it should not be suppressed otherwise no one will courage to speak freely on any issue and India will no more be a democratic country and also Indian needs to improve its judicial system and everybody should know his/her limits.