Let’s Start this Interesting Article Shared on DesiNew.xyz
Dismissing activist Prashant BhushanHis tweets to defend her were part of the right to free speech from her opinion, which could not be considered contempt, Justice Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari Said: “Democracy requires that free speech cannot be disputed, but cannot be used to discredit one of the institutions of democracy.
“There is no doubt, one is free to form an opinion and criticize impartially, but if such an opinion is malicious and malicious, the public expression of the same shall be at the risk of contempt jurisdiction. It cannot be forgotten that Article Rights under 19 (1) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) and the rights of others cannot be violated in the process. The same has to be balanced. ”
On the freedom of the press, the bench said that this was an important aspect of democracy. “We cannot control the thinking process and words going on in a person’s mind, but when it comes to expression, it has to be in accordance with constitutional limits.”
Referring to Bhushan’s comments, the bench said: If the lawyers are allowed to make any malicious, blasphemous and libelous allegations, the lawyer’s noble profession will lose all its importance and charm and prestige. Lawyers are considered fearless, independent and strong, but at the same time respectful to the institution. ”
The SC said: “If judges are severely attacked, it will be difficult for them to act fearlessly and with fairness of approach on issues. The verdict can be criticized. However, the intentions of the judges cannot be attributed, as it brings the administration of justice into disdain. ”
In his 35-year career, Bhushan had made a huge contribution to the society through PIL in SC, reacting to the plea, the bench said: “Because a lawyer is not involved in filing a public interest litigation for the good of the public” is. He has to damage the same system of which he is a part. It cannot be said that a person who is a 35-year-old lawyer who has made malicious and malicious comments in tweets and has raised them in response to an average made in an affidavit has the effect of maligning the institution to which For he belongs, can be made honestly or in good faith. ”
The bench said that in order for truth to be considered a valid defense, it must meet two requirements. He stated, “There is nonqualification to consider the truth as a valid defense that the court must be satisfied that the defense is in the public interest and the request to enforce the said defense is the same”.
“We are of the view that the defense taken is neither in the public interest nor harmful, but the thinker has indulged in making reckless allegations against the administration of justice. On average, as stated by the Attorney General, are based on political thought, and therefore cannot be considered in our view to support the case of a thinker of truth as a defense. The bench said that the allegations leveled are reprehensible and capable of shaking the very extent of judicial administration and also shaking the common man’s faith in the administration of justice.
STAY TUNED WITH US FOR MORE INTERESTING CONTENT ONLY ON DESINEW.XYZ