THE FRAGILE TIGHTROPE- BALANCING JUDICIAL INTEGRITY, RIGHT TO

CRITIQUE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Authors- Nehal Gangwal 24BAL057 and Shreya Bharti 24BAL047

In India, this balance is constantly tested especially when the advocates stand against
judiciary. We have laws like 1the advocates act, 1961 and 2the contempt of court act,1971,
which seek to maintain discipline within the profession and maintain its just and equitable
character. But, does this maintenance of its character really live upto it, are these laws tools of
accountability or do they become barriers against legitimate criticism?

The legal profession works in shades of grey, while lawyers are expected to be fearless
defenders of justice, but they are also required to respect judiciary even when they disagree
with its decisions. The *Advocates Act, 1961*, was meant to create a self-regulating
profession where lawyers would uphold ethical standards. But what happens when the
regulatory bodies themselves are entangled with the judiciary and political influences? Can
an institution truly discipline itself?

3
The case of Prashant Bhushan revolves around this question. On June 29th 2020, advocate
Prashant Bhushan published a tweet about the Chief Justice of India, accompanied by a
picture of CJI Bobde on a motorcycle. Mahek Maheshwari, represented by advocate Anuj
Saxena, filed a petition against Bhushan and Twitter India on July 2nd, requesting the court to
initiate contempt proceedings for the tweet, alleging that it ‘inspired a feeling of no-
confidence’ in the independence of the judiciary and amounted to ‘scandalizing the court’. On
July 21st, the SC took suo moto cognizance of the petition and initiated contempt
proceedings against both Bhushan and Twitter India for unspecified tweets published by the
former on the latter’s platform. The matter was listed for hearing on July 22nd. The bench
took the prima facie view that the statements brought the administration of justice into
disrepute and were capable of undermining the authority of the institutions of the Court –

1
The Advocates Act 1961 (India) [Link] accessed 24
February 2025 (Advocates Act).
2
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (India)
[Link] accessed 24 February 2025 (Contempt of
Courts Act).
3
In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) 3 SCC 481 (Supreme Court of India) [Link]
prashant-bhushan-contempt-petition-against-prashant-bhushan-case-background/ accessed 24 February 2025
(Prashant Bhushan case).
particularly the Chief Justice – in the eyes of the public. After tenuous arguments, the Court
fined Bhushan INR 1. He is required to pay this before September 15th 2020. Further, in the
event of non-compliance Bhushan would be punished with 3 months imprisonment and
debarred from practising law for 3 years.

Cases like this forces us to question whether contempt of court laws are genuinely about
maintaining the dignity of the judiciary or just silencing the risk of any dissenting voices
within the fraternity? And at the same time the juxtaposition that whether unchecked freedom
given to lawyers to criticise courts will weaken the system?

The advocates who supress evidence, delay the cases for personal gains and who manipulate
the system rarely face severe punishment and the ones who overtly challenges the judicial
conduct, like Bhushan are swiftly met with contempt charges.

This oddity of legal ethics becomes more apparent when lawyers turn into political figures,
this blurs the line between professional duty and personal ambition. 4The profession, which
should be a check against power, sometimes finds itself embedded within power structures.
And when lawyers become part of the establishment, their ethical obligations become
secondary to their political alignments.

The Bhushan case highlights several pertinent points, firstly, how the contempt laws are used
selectively. Whether one agrees with his tweets or not, they were expressions of personal
opinions and if a lawyer’s critique of the judiciary weaken the public confidence in it, doesn’t
it say more about judiciary’s credibility rather than the words of the lawyer? Secondly, we
have witnessed the historical questionable judgements of judiciary, during emergency,
corporate accountability or the handling of sensitive political cases, these were the result of
judicial compromises and not external threats. Yet rather than addressing these systemic
issues, the system often focuses on silencing the one who questions this system. Thirdly,
many politicians and media figures have criticized the judiciary far more aggressively than
Bhushan, yet they rarely face contempt proceedings. The power dynamics of the system
decides who gets punished and who doesn’t and a lawyer is an easy target while a politician
backed by party power is not.

4
Richard Devlin, ‘Legal Ethics Versus Political Practices’ (2010) Schulich Law Review
[Link] accessed
25 February 2025 (Devlin).
What should the legal system be like then, over defensive and protective or more
accountable? The current model is defensive, focusing more on protecting the system’s
image. A more progressive approach is to take criticism as a means of correction. First reform
should be to redefine contempt laws and create distinction between malicious defamation and
constructive criticism, there is a fine line between the two and this fine line is of power and
outlook. Not all criticism damages public trust; in fact, some criticisms strengthen it by
exposing weaknesses that need reform. By creating a standardized process for dealing with
contempt cases will create a much more just and equitable framework for the disposal of the
same. Second reform should focus on removing the double standards in the enforcement of
professional ethics. The advocates who manipulate cases and delay the matters should be
disciplined strictly like the ones questioning judicial conduct. This overall makes ethical
standards more about integrity than just about institutional loyalty.

When we talk about ethical standards, are we only concerned about the standards of the
advocates and lawyers? We are not and we shouldn’t be. the judicial system comprises of
much more institutional machinery than lawyers. One interesting case that talks about the
ethical conduct of judges is the case of justice CS Karnan. 5 Justice Karnan is facing the
contempt case after he accused 20 judges of the high judiciary including those currently
serving in the Supreme Court, of corruption. Justice Karnan wrote letter to Prime Minister
Narendra Modi seeking appropriate action against all the judges named by him and he urged
action against them. He failed to provide any evidence against those named in the list but at
the same time urged Mr Modi to investigate and take action against them. There were seven
judge benches to hear this case, it ruled against him and that he was guilty of hurling
unpalpable accusation on chief justices of various high courts and justices of supreme court.
He was held guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to six years imprisonment. When
we analyse such a case the first thing with which everyone agrees is that the integrity and
independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or Favor. an
independent and honourable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society,” judges are
required to personally observe “the highest standards of conduct”, this aspect is very clearly
and astutely mentioned in 6the code of conduct of the American bar association, “Whether the
5
‘India Judge CS Karnan Jailed for Six Months for Contempt’ BBC News (London, 21 June 2017)
[Link] accessed 25 February 2025 (BBC News).
6
American Bar Association, Model Code of Judicial Conduct (ABA 2020)
[Link]
accessed 26 February 2025 (ABA Model Code).
conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out
judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. • If a judge is
courteous, dignified, and patient, litigants are more likely to have confidence that the judge’s
decision has been render. The requirement that a judge be “patient, dignified and courteous”
obviously includes a prohibition on conduct that reflects bias or prejudice. whether a judge
improperly held someone in contempt may be a question of legal error or abuse of
discretion”.

Now let’s turn the page and look at the contentious side of this case. Firstly 7, the impropriety
of the case being dealt with seven judge benches, as per the constitution a case has to be
heard by 2 or 3 judges and higher only in exceptional circumstances but this case was a
simple contempt case. Secondly, there was previously a similar case of justice Sumitra Sen
but it simply recommended impeachment to the parliament but here justice Karnan was sent
to the prison for six months, which is highest in contempt cases. Another important point is
that he was not even heard before the bench, he may have done something or said something
against the court but does this absolve him form getting a chance of fair hearing? Finally, this
judgement was also hurriedly given, and amicus curae was also not appointed, someone who
is the third part, a friend of the court and helps in impartial judgement, an amicus curae’s
presence is pertinent in complex cases like this and absence of the same showcases the laxity
of judiciary.

Finally, to wind up, professional ethics is not limited to following the rules and guidelines, it
is about constantly questioning the same. Contempt laws are meant to uphold the dignity of
the courts but when they are used to supress criticism, it negates its essence and reveals an
undermining insecurity regarding its credibility. If the legal professional cannot question the
judiciary without fear, then it loses its character as the guardian of justice. And if judges
cannot tolerate criticism, then they risk alienating the very public whose trust they seek to
protect.

Judges are the key to ensuring justice, and their position does not exempt them from
following ethical standards but also hand in hand goes rationality and reasonableness, this
lacuna of judiciary, double standards and indecisive character is a threat to its effective
functioning. In the end, the biggest threat to the judiciary is not criticism from advocates, but
7
‘Judicial Administration and Justice C.S. Karnan Issue: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Contempt
Case’ iPleaders Blog (16 July 2017) [Link]
critical-analysis-supreme-court-contempt-case/ accessed 26 February 2025 (iPleaders).
a refusal to engage with that criticism. Because when lawyers fall silent, it is not justice that
prevails—it is control and it is important to fill the judicial procedural lacunas for its effective
functioning.
i
i
The Advocates Act 1961 (India) [Link] accessed 27
February 2025.
2. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (India)
[Link] accessed 27 February 2025.
3. Supreme Court Observer, ‘In Re: Prashant Bhushan Contempt Petition Against Prashant Bhushan Case
Background’ (2020) [Link]
prashant-bhushan-case-background/ accessed 27 February 2025.
4. BBC News, ‘Indian Judge CS Karnan Jailed for Contempt’ (BBC, 21 June 2017)
[Link] accessed 27 February 2025.
5. American Bar Association, Model Code of Judicial Conduct (ABA 2019)
[Link]
model_code_of_judicial_conduct/#:~:text=A%20judge%20shall%20uphold%20and,and%20the
%20appearance%20of%20impropriety.&text=A%20judge%20shall%20perform%20the,impartially%2C
%20competently%2C%20and%20diligently. accessed 27 February 2025.
6. iPleaders, ‘Judicial Administration & Justice C.S. Karnan Issue – A Critical Analysis of Supreme Court
Contempt Case’ (iPleaders, 2017) [Link]
critical-analysis-supreme-court-contempt-case/#Analysis_of_the_judgement accessed 27 February 2025.
7. Richard Devlin, ‘Legal Ethics Versus Political Practices’ (2010) Schulich Law Scholars
[Link]
accessed 27 February 2025