Relief for Swara Bhasker as AG refuses action in contempt case

Attorney general KK Venugopal on Sunday declined to grant permission for the initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against Bollywood actor Swara Bhasker for a statement that a petitioner said was critical of the Supreme Court and its judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute case.

Bhasker’s statement that the Supreme Court acknowledged the illegality of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in its November 2019 judgment and yet rewarded those who brought down the mosque “appears to be a factual statement” and reflects Bhasker’s perception of the incident, Venugopal said in his letter to the petitioner, Usha Shetty, declining the request.

“The statement appears to be a factual one and is a perception of the speaker. The comment refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court, and is not an attack on the institution. This does not offer any comment on the Supreme Court itself or say anything that would scandalize or lower the authority of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, this statement does not constitute criminal contempt,” the AG’s letter stated.

The plea against Bhasker, which was filed by Shetty on August 17, was placed before AG for his consent to list the matter before the court.

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 the solicitor general is required before the apex court can hear a criminal contempt petition filed by an individual.

The November 9 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya dispute, which was delivered by a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India ( CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, had awarded the 2.77 acre disputed site for the construction of . a temple; it directed the Centre to allocate a five-acre plot elsewhere for the construction of a new mosque. The 16th Century Babri mosque was demolished in December 1992 by Hindu activists who believe that the site marks the birthplace of the warrior-god Ram.

The top court had 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 the non-government organisation (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.”

Regarding Bhasker’s statement about courts not believing in the Constitution, the AG said that it was a vague and general statement not related to any particular court and cannot be taken seriously.

Venugopal had on, August 20, asked the Supreme Court not to punish lawyer Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court in relation to his tweets against Supreme Court and current CJI SA Bobde.

After AG declined permission, Shetty’ lawyers on Sunday wrote to solicitor general Tushar Mehta, seeking his consent.

Shetty submitted that the statement by Bhasker was derogatory and intended to scandalize the Supreme Court. It is not merely a cheap stunt for publicity, but a deliberate attempt to incite the 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.