The initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt of court against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan has once again brought under focus the necessity for retaining the law of contempt as it stands today. In an era in which social media are full of critics, commentators and observers who deem it necessary to air their views in many unrestrained and uninhibited ways, the higher judiciary should not really be expending its time and energy invoking its power to punish for contempt of itself. While it may not be reasonable to expect that the courts should ignore every allegation or innuendo, and every piece of scurrility, there is much wisdom in giving a wide latitude to publicly voiced criticism and strident questioning of the court’s ways and decisions. Mr. Bhushan is no stranger to the art of testing the limits of the judiciary’s tolerance of criticism. He has made allegations of corruption against judges in the past, and has been hauled up for it. The latest proceedings concern two
Rajasthan Governor Kalraj Mishra could have sought a floor test in the State Assembly to ensure that the government of Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has a majority, as soon as a rebellion in the ruling Congress cast a shadow on it. Far from that, Mr. Mishra now appears to be bending over backwards to delay a trust vote. The Governor has cited six reasons for his procrastination in calling an Assembly session. But the Supreme Court has settled that the Governor has no discretionary powers in summoning a session of the Assembly, and he or she is bound to act according to the aid and advice of the CM and the Council of Ministers. The Governor can require the CM and the Council of Ministers to seek a trust vote if he or she has reasons to believe that they have lost the confidence of the Assembly. Either way, the only appropriate way forward for Mr. Mishra is to convene the session and allow the democratic process to take its course. Now that the State cabinet has reiterated its demand for a
