Do convicts of criminal contempt of court have the right to appeal? Justice UU Lalit offers to recuse

New Delhi, May 6

Do convicts of criminal contempt of court have the right to appeal? As the Supreme Court took up the contentious issue raised by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Friday, Justice UU Lalit offered to recuse from hearing activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s plea seeking right to appeal against convictions in original criminal contempt cases to be heard by a larger different Bench.

Justice Lalit — who was heading a three-judge Bench that also included Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha ndash; said he was appointed as amicus curiae in one of the cases relating to Bhushan.

In contempt cases the Supreme Court was the aggrieved party, the “prosecutor, the witness, and the judge” and hence they raise fear of inherent bias, Bhushan ndash; who was convicted of contempt of court in 2020 ndash; contended.

At the outset Justice Lalit said, “I think it was Harish Salve (senior advocate) as amicus curiae in the Tehelka matter. I was also the amicus in the same matter for almost 16 years…I was involved in the matter, so should I go ahead with the matter or nothellip;”

Justice Lalit asked the advocate for Bhushan to file an affidavit stating he had no objection, if he heard the case.

As senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan requested Justice Lalit to go ahead with the hearing, the judge asked him to file an affidavit and deferred the hearing to May 17.

Convicted and awarded one rupee fine in connection with his contemptuous tweets against the judiciary in August 2020, Bhushan had moved the top court seeking the right to appeal against convictions in original criminal contempt cases to be heard by a larger different Bench.

A “person convicted for criminal contempt by this court, including the petitioner herein, would have a right to an intra-court appeal to be heard by a larger and different Bench,” Bhushan has demanded, suggesting procedural changes to reduce the chances of “arbitrary, vengeful and high-handed decisions” in criminal contempt cases.