<p>Senior journalists N Ram and Arun Shourie, and activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan on Thursday preferred to withdraw their plea, challenging validity of the Contempt of Courts Act, for violating fundamental rights to freedom of speech and equality, to approach the High Court.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari allowed a request for withdrawal made by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on their behalf.</p>.<p>Dhavan said the issue was important but the petitioners would not like to raise it at this stage as similar matter were pending. They may approach the court after two months.</p>.<p>The court, however, said it would not permit the petitioners to come to the top court again. They, however, may approach the High Court, which is also a constitutional court.</p>.<p>The petition was filed during the pendency of two contempt proceedings against Bhushan.</p>.<p>One arose out of his allegation of corruption among former Chief Justices of India, made in Tehelka magazine interview in 2009. The matter has been posted for consideration from August 17 by the court, which had rejected his explanation.</p>.<p>Another contempt case was related to his tweets made in June, 2020. The judgement has already been reserved in this case. Both matters were considered by a bench led by Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>In their plea, the petitioners sought a declaration that Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act was unconstitutional as it was incompatible with preambular values and basic features of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The provision was likely to be used to "stifle criticism and freely discuss the acts of judiciary", they claimed.</p>.<p>They also contended the provision violated Article 19(1)(a) and was unconstitutionally and incurably vague, besides being manifestly arbitrary.</p>.<p>Section 2(c)(i) stated that criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation) of any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.</p>.<p>The petition had a fair share controversy. The Supreme Court on administrative side last week sought an explanation from its registry for listing the matter by "mistake" before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph, "ignoring established practice and procedure".</p>.<p>Since the petition by Ram and others also sought stay on the ongoing contempt proceedings against advocate Bhushan, it could not have been listed before any other bench, sources said.</p>.<p>Journalists Ram and Shourie, who is also a former Union Minister, themselves have faced contempt of court at different points of time.</p>
<p>Senior journalists N Ram and Arun Shourie, and activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan on Thursday preferred to withdraw their plea, challenging validity of the Contempt of Courts Act, for violating fundamental rights to freedom of speech and equality, to approach the High Court.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari allowed a request for withdrawal made by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on their behalf.</p>.<p>Dhavan said the issue was important but the petitioners would not like to raise it at this stage as similar matter were pending. They may approach the court after two months.</p>.<p>The court, however, said it would not permit the petitioners to come to the top court again. They, however, may approach the High Court, which is also a constitutional court.</p>.<p>The petition was filed during the pendency of two contempt proceedings against Bhushan.</p>.<p>One arose out of his allegation of corruption among former Chief Justices of India, made in Tehelka magazine interview in 2009. The matter has been posted for consideration from August 17 by the court, which had rejected his explanation.</p>.<p>Another contempt case was related to his tweets made in June, 2020. The judgement has already been reserved in this case. Both matters were considered by a bench led by Justice Mishra.</p>.<p>In their plea, the petitioners sought a declaration that Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act was unconstitutional as it was incompatible with preambular values and basic features of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The provision was likely to be used to "stifle criticism and freely discuss the acts of judiciary", they claimed.</p>.<p>They also contended the provision violated Article 19(1)(a) and was unconstitutionally and incurably vague, besides being manifestly arbitrary.</p>.<p>Section 2(c)(i) stated that criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation) of any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.</p>.<p>The petition had a fair share controversy. The Supreme Court on administrative side last week sought an explanation from its registry for listing the matter by "mistake" before a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph, "ignoring established practice and procedure".</p>.<p>Since the petition by Ram and others also sought stay on the ongoing contempt proceedings against advocate Bhushan, it could not have been listed before any other bench, sources said.</p>.<p>Journalists Ram and Shourie, who is also a former Union Minister, themselves have faced contempt of court at different points of time.</p>
