The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to frame guidelines on whether advocates can participate in TV debates or write in newspapers or magazines, particularly about pending matters on which they themselves are appearing in court.

After a general discussion on whether lawyers were talking out of turn, the bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha issued a notice to activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan on contempt petitions filed separately by attorney-general K.K. Venugopal and the Centre.

Bhushan had in tweets accused the government of misleading the top court in a case relating to the appointment of M. Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

Venugopal argues that Bhushan has virtually pointed fingers at Justice A.K. Sikri, an apex court judge who had attended the selection panel meeting that discussed the appointment of an interim CBI director. Justice Sikri was filling in for Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, a member of the panel.

“Freedom comes with a responsibility. It is the duty of the bar to protect the judiciary. But nowadays it seems the bar is out with daggers to kill the judiciary. We are very sorry, because we don’t know who will back our independence when the bar behaves like this,” Justice Mishra observed.

“All kinds of allegations are made in the petitions and then they are withdrawn before we deal with them. We are really worried about what’s going on these days.”

Justice Sinha observed: “There is no problem when a lawyer goes and gives (the) facts of the case. However, the question is whether comments can be made on cases even before the decision comes.”

Justice Mishra said it had become “very common” for lawyers to write articles on fresh petitions before they had even been heard.

“It happens so many times that a petition is filed and gets reported. But when it comes up for hearing, the petitioner withdraws (it). Doesn’t this affect the human dignity of (the) individual against whom the petition (has been) filed? Isn’t it violation of his or her right?” Justice Mishra asked.

He adjourned the matter to March 9, by when Bhushan has to file his replies.

After the top court had heard Bhushan’s client Common Cause on February 1, the lawyer had tweeted that Venugopal had misled the court by claiming the high-powered selection committee, led by the Prime Minister, had approved Rao’s appointment.

Bhushan alleged that the purported minutes of the meeting that Venugopal had placed before the bench had been fabricated.

He tweeted that he had spoken to Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, a member of the selection committee, who had denied giving any such approval. Bhushan then accused the Centre of fabricating the minutes of the meeting.

On Wednesday, Venugopal said he did not want any punishment for Bhushan but there should be guidelines to prevent advocates from airing views on matters pending before the courts.

“You cannot go accusing people right and left. My learned friend could have placed his apprehensions before the court instead of going public with his remarks,” he said.

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, representing the government, pleaded that Bhushan be hauled up for contempt of court.

“Your Lordships must note that statements such as ‘today is a black day in the judiciary’ are being made. The courts’ magnanimity should not be confused with weakness,” he said. “I would request… a deterrent punishment.”

The maximum jail term for contempt of court is six months.