Contempt is a notion defined with pre-existence of sense of self. If I do not possess ego, a sense of self, then I will not get offended by any contempt thrown at me. Yet, contempt plays a role in society in terms of a signal. We learn by experiences, but we chose through signals. I decide to buy based on reviews, which are signals. I decide to choose a path of education based on signals. Contempt can change the nature of signals about a person, an organization and an institution and change in signals can bring change in response of clients. This is the logic of reaction of supreme court, that if nature of perception of Supreme court changes due to contemptuous statements about supreme court then it will lead to harm of the nation as Indians will use the institution of Supreme court in sub-optimal manner. It is a kind of utilitarian or consequential logic. The objection of Prashant Bhushan (PB) remark is not out of the nature of remarks per say, but due to the consequences.
I do not think court's theoretically correct argument holds any empirical merit. PB does not hold such sway over minds of Indian that because his negative remarks, approach of Indians towards Supreme court alters significantly than what could have been in the absence of his tweets. PB belongs to ivory tower of left-liberals whose typical connection with people are easily accessible slums of Delhi. He splashing dirty water over judges will not change actions of firms and agents to seek ultimate recourse in supreme court, precisely because there is no alternative to supreme court. Supreme court debates over policies and principles and there is no alternative to such debates. Only when plaintiff thinks that probability of unmanipulated and time-efficient judgement is too low, then plaintiffs will stop seeking recourse at supreme court. In that case, we will witness shutdown of businesses or large scale corruption scandals as plaintiffs try to use political channel to seek recourse, which leads to Samurai competition which is bloody and unending, thus inefficient.
Ideal course- Supreme court should not have taken cognizance of these remarks and have nullified them by magnanimity and confidence in their own ability to remain the point of trust of Indians. Judge could have said बडे बडे देशोमे ऐसे छोटे छोटे कमेंट्स आते रहते है.
2nd best - Just to prove the point, prove PB guilty and let him do some social service like cleaning yard of court. - This is what court should do now. Pecuniary fine or jail term is going to belittle Supreme court. PB can remain defiant about his remarks, but he will undergo punishment. Defying punishment will be unacceptable in his own framework. So choose a punishment whose acceptance will put PB in quandary. Problem is can judge legally go for such punishment. May be that is the reason court is nudging PB in apology.
3rd best- give him pecuniary fine or jail term and be done with it. No point having a limbo where he is guilty but not punished. - This is what eventually happen.
Hopefully this saga for a while will put stop to redressal of contempts of courts by agents other than court itself. Or, considering the nature of ruling disposition, there might be law-making which will generate severe consequences for contempt of court. Afterall, having long-term vindictiveness is hallmark of current disposition and source of power. It drives their cadre quite hard. Either way, there is a possibility that such needless waste of precious judicious resources will be less in future.