Lawyers supposed to be fearlessly independent but at the same time respectful to institution: SC

NEW DELHI: Advocates are supposed to be “fearlessly independent and robust” but at the same time respectful to the institution, the Supreme Court said on Monday while imposing a “nominal fine” of Re 1 on activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan in a contempt case.
The apex court said that lawyers' noble profession would lose all its significance, charm and dignity if advocates are permitted to make any “malicious, scandalous and scurrilous allegations” against the institution of which they are part.
The top court noted in its verdict that it is not expected of a person, who is a part of system of administration of justice, to make such tweets “which are capable of shaking the confidence of general public and further making wild allegations in the affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the said institution.”
“Such an act by responsible person who is part of this system cannot be ignored or overlooked,” said the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari.
“We find no justification to make such a remark/tweet, particularly when it is made by a lawyer with 35 years standing like Prashant Bhushan, who is an officer of the court and advocates enjoy equal dignity in the system,” the bench said.
The top court said there is no doubt that freedom of press is also an important aspect in a democracy.
“We cannot control the thinking process and words operating in the mind of one individual, but when it comes to expression, it has to be within the constitutional limits,” it said.
“The lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the institution,” the bench said.
Bhushan was convicted in the contempt case on August 14 for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary.
The bench said merely because a lawyer is involved in filing of public interest litigation for the public good, it “does not arm him to harm the very system of which he is a part”.
“Though expectation from an ordinary citizen may be different, the duties and expectations that are expected from a lawyer of long standing are on higher side,” it said.
The top court said that an advocate cannot forget his ethical duty, responsibility and cannot denigrate the very system of which he or she is an integral part.
“Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer,” it said.
The bench said when criticism turns into “malicious and scandalous allegations” thereby tending to undermine the confidence of the public and the institution as a whole, such a criticism cannot be ignored.