A petition has been filed before the Attorney-General of India seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against actor Swara Bhaskar for ‘scandalising’ the Supreme Court .
Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute:
The petition filed by Karnataka resident Usha Shetty refers to an address by Ms. Bhaskar in a public meeting organised by the Mumbai Collective following the apex court’s judgment in the Ramjanmabhoomi title dispute case in November last year in which the court had ordered the handing over of the disputed land to the Hindus to build a temple.
According to the petition, Ms. Bhaskar said: “We are living in a country where the SC states in a judgment that demolition of Babri Masjid was unlawful and in the same judgment rewards the same people who brought down the mosque.” It said she questioned the court’s belief in the Constitution.
When did the dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi start, and why did it take so long for a resolution?
Ms. Shetty, represented by advocates Anuj Saxena, Prakash Sharma and Mahek Maheshwari, said Ms. Bhaskar’s statements in her address on February 1 were “derogatory and scandalous in nature, putting a big question on the judiciary and their integrity to the Constitution”.
The petition said Ms. Bhaskar’s statements were not only a cheap publicity stunt to get a brief applause but also an attempt to turn the masses to resist and revolt against the Supreme Court.
What she said amounted to scandalising the court to “provoke a resistance against the judiciary as an institution”, the petition said.
Mr. Maheshwari’s complaint on a tweet by civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan about Chief Justice S.A. Bobde on a bike was suo motu taken cognisance of by the apex court.
Mr. Bhushan had challenged how the court could have taken cognisance of this complaint without the Attorney-General’s prior consent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute timeline
In its August 14 verdict convicting Mr. Bhushan for contempt, the apex court held the Attorney-General’s approval was not necessary if it took suo motu contempt action using its inherent powers as a court of record under Article 129.
