Reuters file photo
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court On Monday, he said he hoped the January 12, 2018 press conference of the four highest-ranking Supreme Court judges would be the “first and last time” the justices have gone to the media.
The four highest judges of the supreme court at the time: Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian joseph – had held an unprecedented press conference on January 12, 2018, when Justice Dipak Misra he was the Chief Justice of India and had highlighted a litany of problems plaguing the highest court in the country.
He then CJI and all four judges have since retired.
A bank headed by Judge Arun Mishra, imposing a “nominal fine” of Re 1 to Prashant Bhushan In a contempt case, he pointed out on Monday that the activist lawyer had tried to justify the claims made on the basis of the press conference of these four judges.
“We hope this is the first and last time that judges have gone to the press, and God gives wisdom to protect their dignity through internal mechanisms, particularly when the accusations made, if any, publicly cannot be heard by the judges. victims. It would cause them suffering for eternity, ”said the court, also composed of judges BR Gavai and Krishna Murari.
“The truth can also be the defense of the judges, but they are subject to its judicial norms, ethics and code of conduct,” the court said in its 82-page sentence.
The high court said that similarly, the code of conduct for lawyers also applies to lawyers, as they are part of the system.
“The Rules of Professional Ethics formed by the Bar Association, although drafted under statutory power, are not in themselves sufficient to prescribe or proscribe the nobility of the profession as a whole. The nobility of the profession includes, beyond, the Rules of Ethics ”, he said.
The court noted that judges have to express their opinion through their sentences and cannot enter the public debate or go to the press.
“It is very easy to make any accusation against the judges in the newspapers and the media. The judges have to be the ones who silently suffer such accusations and cannot counter such accusations publicly by going to public platforms, newspapers or the media. Nor can they write anything about the veracity of the various outlandish accusations made, except when they are dealing with the matter, ”he said.
The highest court said that the retired judges “have the prestige they have earned through hard work and dedication to this institution.”
He noted that judges are also not supposed to respond to each and every one of the accusations made and enter the public debate.
“Therefore, it is necessary that when they cannot speak, they cannot be made to suffer the loss of their reputation and prestige, which is an essential part of the right to live with dignity,” he said.
The Bar Association is supposed to be the “mouthpiece for protection” of the judicial system and are an integral part of the system, he said.
“The Bar and Bench are part of the same system, that is, the court system, and they have the same reputation. If a scathing attack is made on the judges, it will be difficult for them to work without fear and with the objectivity of approach to problems, ”he said.
“The judgment can be criticized. However, it is not necessary to attribute motives to the judges, since it discredits the administration of justice ”, said the judge.
The high court imposed a “nominal fine” of Re 1 on Bhushan, who was convicted of criminal contempt for his two tweets against the judiciary, saying he has tried “to denigrate the reputation of the justice administration institution.”
The court said it was “showing magnanimity” and instead of imposing severe punishment, it was sentencing Bhushan with a nominal fine of Re 1.
He said the fine would be deposited in the high court registry before September 15, otherwise Bhushan will be subjected to a simple three-month prison sentence and further barred from practicing in the high court for three years.
On August 14, the high court found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary and held that they cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary made in the public interest.
.
