Solicitor General of India (SG), Tushar Mehta on Wednesday declined permission for initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against actor Swara Bhasker for her statements criticising the Supreme Court and its 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya dispute.
Mehta said in his letter to the petitioner, one Usha Shetty from Karnataka that the Attorney General for India (AG), KK Venugopal had earlier rejected a similar request by Shetty and hence the request made to the SG is misconceived.
“The AG, on August 21, has declined to provide his consent for the reasons stated in the reply of the AG. Considering the fact that the AG has already declined to grant his consent, the present request made to me is misconceived,” Mehta said in his letter to Shetty.
Bhasker had, on February 1, said that the Supreme Court acknowledged the illegality of the demolition of Babri Masjid in its November 2019 judgment and yet rewarded the perpetrators who brought down the mosque by handing over the land to them.
The plea seeking initiation of a criminal contempt case against Bhasker, which was filed by Shetty on August 17, was initially placed before AG for his consent to list the matter before the court.
{{/usCountry}}The plea seeking initiation of a criminal contempt case against Bhasker, which was filed by Shetty on August 17, was initially placed before AG for his consent to list the matter before the court.
{{/usCountry}}As per Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rule 3 of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, the consent of the AG or SG is required before the apex court can hear a criminal contempt petition filed by a private individual.
After the AG declined permission, Shetty’s lawyers had approached the SG.
The November 9 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya dispute, which was delivered by a bench headed by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, had awarded the 2.77 acre disputed site to Ram Lalla Virajman, the child deity. The bench had also ordered that 5 acres of land at an alternative site should be granted to Muslims for construction of a new mosque.
The top court had, interestingly, acknowledged the existence of a valid mosque at the disputed site and had expressly stated that the acts of Hindus in placing idols inside the mosque in 1949 and destruction of the mosque in 1992 were illegal.
Bhasker had, on February 1, attended a panel discussion organized by NGO Mumbai Collective on the topic ‘Artists against Communalism’. During the discussion, Bhasker, as alleged by the petitioner, made the following statement:
“We are now in a situation where our courts are not sure whether they believe in the Constitution or not…We are living in a country where the Supreme Court of our country states in a judgment that the demolition of Babri Masjid was unlawful and in the same judgment rewards the same people who brought down the mosque.”
Shetty submitted that the statement by Bhaskar is derogatory and intended to scandalize the Supreme Court. It is not merely a cheap stunt for publicity but a deliberate attempt to incite masses to “resist and revolt against the apex court”, she added.
“The statement intends to incite feeling of no confidence amongst public with respect to the proceedings of the Supreme Court. It amounts to criminal contempt,” the petition said.
Venugopal in his response to the petitioner said that Bhasker’s statement on Ayodhya judgment “appeared to be a factual statement” and reflected her perception of the incident.
Regarding Bhasker’s statement about courts not believing in the Constitution, the AG said that it is a vague and general statement not related to any particular court and cannot be taken seriously.
Venugopal had recently urged the Supreme Court not to punish activist lawyer, Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court in relation to his tweets against the Supreme Court and current Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde. The top court is yet to pronounce its judgment in that case.