India: ICJ urges review of criminal contempt laws after Supreme Court convicts human rights lawyer for social media posts critical of judiciary

India: ICJ urges review of criminal contempt laws after Supreme Court convicts human rights lawyer for social media posts critical of judiciary

The ICJ today expressed its concern regarding the 31 August 2020 and 14 August 2020 decisions of the Indian Supreme Court to convict prominent human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court, on the basis of two twitter posts in which the lawyer criticized the performance of the Indian judiciary.

While the Court only imposed a symbolic fine of one rupee, rather than imprisonment, the ICJ considers that the conviction appears to be inconsistent with international standards on freedom of expression and the role of lawyers.

The ICJ stressed that the ruling risks having a chilling effect on the exercise of protected freedom of expression in India and urged a review of the laws and standards on criminal contempt as applied by the Indian courts.

The two tweets published by Prashant Bhushan referred to the Chief Justice of India riding an expensive motorbike belonging to a BJP leader “when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice” and asserted that the Supreme Court and the last four Chief Justices of India had contributed to how, in his view, “democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency”

The Court in its 31 August judgment held that the tweets were a serious attempt to “denigrate the reputation of the institution of administration of justice” which, it said, is “capable of shaking the very edifice of the judicial administration and also shaking the faith of common man in the administration of justice.”

The Court considered that its ruling was consistent with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, saying that it will have to balance its exercise of power to punish for contempt for itself (Article 129) with freedom of speech and expression.

The ICJ is concerned, however, that the conviction appears inconsistent with international law on freedom of expression as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19, ICCPR) to which India is a party.

While some restrictions of freedom of expression are permitted by international standards, a particularly wide scope must be preserved for debate and discussion about such matters as the role of the judiciary, access to justice, and democracy, by members of the public, including through public commentary on the courts.

Any restrictions must be strictly necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate purpose, such as protecting public order or the rights and reputations of others.

“There is a general concern that the protection of freedom of expression is rapidly eroding in India,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.

“We have seen this recently around the COVID 19 crisis in relation to the imprisonment of human rights defenders, on draconian charges of sedition, rioting and unlawful assembly for protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.”

“While the Indian Supreme Court has over the years generally been an institution that has served to advance human rights in India and globally, we fear it now may be perceived as silencing criticism and freedom of expression by invoking outdated criminal contempt laws,” Seiderman added.

The ICJ joins the 1800 Indian lawyers in calling for the Supreme Court “to review the standards of criminal contempt”, emphasizing that the law is overbroad and should be aligned with international law and standards on the limited scope for restrictions on freedom of expression and criminal contempt.

“Prashant Bhushan is a lawyer and lawyers being part of the legal system have a ring-side view and understanding of the state of the court. Convicting a leading lawyer for contempt for expressing his views in this manner may have a chilling effect on lawyers, in particular considering his involvement in many public interest litigation cases,” said Mandira Sharma, ICJ South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.

Contact

Ian Seiderman – ICJ Legal and Policy Director; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org , t: +41 22 979 38 00

Matt Pollard – ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Director, ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org, t: +41 79 246 54 75

Download

India-Criminal-Contempt-of-Court-Press-Release-2020-ENG (PDF, with additional background information)

India: ICJ Commissioner Justice Ajit Prakash Shah discusses the responsibility of the Courts in upholding human rights during COVID-19 pandemic

India: ICJ Commissioner Justice Ajit Prakash Shah discusses the responsibility of the Courts in upholding human rights during COVID-19 pandemic

In a wide-ranging interview recorded on June 4 2020, ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, Ajit Prakash Shah, called on the Indian judiciary to exercise its responsibility to protect peoples’ human rights and “reprise its role as protector of Indian people” in the context of the Covid-19 epidemic.

In April and May 2020, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed several petitions and applications concerning the rights of internal migrant workers.

These included petitions demanding that migrant workers be moved to shelter homes and provided with basic needs and that payment of minimum wages be made to all migrant workers for the lockdown period.

The Court was also requested to direct the District Magistrates to identify those who are walking and ensure that they are provided with shelter and food and reach their destination, following the death of 16 internal migrant workers killed while sleeping on railway tracks while on their way back to their hometowns.

Finally, on 26 May 2020 the Court took suo moto cognizance of their predicament and, on 28 May 2020 ordered the Government to: register internal migrant workers; provide internal migrant workers free transportation home; and provide internal migrant workers with shelter, food, and water until they reach their homes.

This action was followed by another order on 9 June by which the Court ordered that: internal migrant workers are identified and sent to their hometowns within 15 days; and that all cases registered against those who had allegedly violated COVID-19 lockdown orders be considered for withdrawal.

In the interview, Justice Shah accented, in particular, the role of the Indian judiciary “as protector of Indian people” in respect of marginalized and disadvantaged people, including people living in poverty.

In addressing the question about internal migrant workers who were stranded during the recent COVID-19 lockdown, Justice Shah observed that for two months (March 24 2020 – May 28 2020) between the initiation of the lockdown and the rulings of the Supreme Court the Court appeared to have “remained skeptical” and in “denial” about petitions filed seeking redress for internal migrant workers.

Speaking in this context, Justice Shah reminded the Indian judiciary that Indian courts have historically been at “the forefront of giving effect to India’s international legal obligations,” including its economic, social, and cultural rights obligations encapsulated in International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

They had done so in landmark cases such as PUCL v. UOI (in which it held that the right to life with dignity includes a right to food and a right to be free from hunger and starvation) and Chameli Singh v. UOI (in which it held that right to shelter includes adequate living space includes light, air, water, civil amenities, and sanitation).

While commending the Courts interventions in May 2020, Justice Shah pointed out that their lateness to react was damaging.

“Courts should have intervened earlier. They could have monitored the process of the return of the migrants to their home states and ensured basic wages were fixed and delivered.”

Justice Shah expressed hope that the 28 May 2020 order represented a turning point:

“Hopefully, going forward, the Court will act in the same spirit … to grant some reliefs to suffering migrant communities. In the future, the Court should take the lead and monitor these processes, serving as a guide to both the center and the state authorities and the bureaucracy for addressing these issues.”

Commenting on the role of lawyers during the COVID-19 crisis, Justice Shah expressed concern that law officers were castigating lawyers for approaching courts with petitions.

Watch the video

Additional Reading

  1. Briefing Papers
    1. India on the Brink of Hunger Crisis during COVID-19 Pandemic
    2. The Right to Water in India and the COVID 19 Crisis
    3. COVID-19 Pandemic Exposes India’s Housing Crisis
  2. Press Release: COVID-19: Indian authorities must act immediately to protect internal migrant workers stranded under intolerable conditions

Download (with additional information)

India-Justice-Shah-Interview-Web-Story-2020-ENG (PDF)

Translate »