So with these clues in mind, what does it say about the current holder of this high office, that he has been cheerily handing out his consent for criminal contempt petitions against stand-up comedians and now even cartoonists?

Because of which, by the way, a contempt petition has actually been filed in the Supreme Court of India against Rachita Taneja, the illustrator of the Sanitary Panels comics, for her cartoons about the Supreme Court of India.

Have we really reached a point where a cartoonist with 20 thousand followers on Twitter and 84 thousand followers on Instagram is capable of undermining public confidence in the Supreme Court? Is the Supreme Court of India – often termed the most powerful court in the world – on such shaky footing that some sharp cartoons are enough to pose a threat to its standing? If that is truly the case, then the Supreme Court needs to ask itself some very serious questions about how its reputation has come to such a sorry pass. And don’t forget the imputed intent here: the AG actually thinks that Rachita Taneja, the cartoonist, is actively trying to undermine the apex court? Has the concept of dissent become so alien in this country that any criticism of the powers that be is construed as an attempt to undermine rather than urge reform?

Is contempt a valid ground to restrict freedom of speech under the Constitution?

Sure, it is, but let’s not forget, any restriction on the fundamental rights has to be reasonable . Ignoring the context of how cartoons function, the way in which jokes and satire form part of a strong culture of dissent and critique, can hardly be considered reasonable. There is a reason that the Supreme Court in multiple judgments had held that the power of contempt has to be exercised exercised cautiously, and with circumspection, as the respect and standing of the judiciary should come from its own judgments, not clamping down on criticism.

In Approving Contempt Against Comics, Attorney General KK Venugopal Isn’t Acting for India or the Supreme Court

(This story was originally published on 7 December 2020 and is being republished from The Quint’s archives in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s scheduled verdict on Friday, 18 December, in the contempt of court proceedings against Kunal Kamra and Rachita Taneja.)

Article 76 of the Constitution, which creates the post of Attorney General, uses slightly curious wording. The first sub-clause says that “The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to be Attorney General for India” (emphasis supplied).

The implications of this wording are not the easiest to ascertain.

There was only a limited discussion in the Constituent Assembly on the draft article that eventually became Article 76, the post doesn’t have the history and tradition it has in the United Kingdom, and there is little scholarship about the role of the Attorney General here, unlike the USA, where the need to serve the public interest is now considered part and parcel of the position.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Contempt of Court Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case

Published: 04 Dec 2020, 8:01 AM IST

BECOME A MEMBER

In Approving Contempt Against Comics, AG Isn’t Acting for India

KK Venugopal is ignoring the context in which cartoonists & comedians express dissent – to the SC’s own detriment.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Contempt of Court Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case