Dave: Looking into the contentious tweets now.

Dave refers to the tweet relating to the #CJI's photo on a @harleydavidson bike.
"They do not scandalize the court. These are all facts"

Dave: As far as the other tweet is concerned, The registry did not serve me notice on this tweet. Lordships must follow procedure.

Bench: Does your client deny writing this? The tweet appeared in the paper

Dave: I'm not denying writing it. That's not the issue here. There must be a procedure that's followed.

Dave goes on to contend why @timesofindia published a tweet from June in July, when the Bench was due to take up the matter.
"It could have published that tweet mischievously. They should have been called"

Dave reading out certain precedents to buttress his argument that the present case is not a fit case of contempt.

"Rights under Article 19 cannot be 'controlled' under contempt law like this. Sometimes certain things may be unpalatable, I agree. However rights must be upheld"

"Citizen has a right to say that perhaps the Court has not done its duty in certain issues" Dave says.

Dave goes on to talk about how contempt law is invoked sparingly in UK. Refers to judgments by Lord Atkin.

Dave: Bhushan has single handedly contributed in assisting your court in developing jurisprudence to a great extent, especially in tort law. His contribution in developing jurisprudence is immense.

Dave: His comments are not out of malice. If he feels there were certain aspects where the court could have done something differently, it could be taken as a suggestion.

Dave: His criticism is not out of malice. It's out of love and affection for the court. It's not personal. We all want the court be stronger. This is what the constitution says regarding separation of power..citizen may question.

Dave: Please don't be sensitive about these comments. It's seriously affects right to freedom of speech and expression, and right to life.