PRESS RELEASE

6TH MARCH 2002

WE FELL VERY SORRY FOR THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST Ms. ARUNDHATI ROY UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

On 15th October 1999, the Supreme Court, without even giving Arundhati Roy a notice or an opportunity to be heard and therefore in violation of the principles of Natural Justice proceeded to make the following remarks against her:
„Judicial process and institution cannot be permitted to be scandalized or subjected to contumacious violation in such a blatant manner in which it has been done by her. Vicious stultification and vulgar debunking cannot be permitted to pollute the stream of justice. We are unhappy at the way in which the leaders of the NBA and Ms Arundhati Roy have attempted to undermine the dignity of the court. We expected better behavior from them.‰
In February 2001, the Supreme Court issued notice to Roy, Medha Patkar and Prashant Bhushan for Criminal Contempt of Court on the basis of a petition filed by 5 lawyers who alleged that she along with Patkar and Prashant Bhushan had led this demonstration, shouted vulgar slogans against the Court, and had assaulted and threatened the petitioners.
The Petition filed by the Advocates had several fatal defects. Firstly, the petition did not disclose the addresses of the Petitioners or the respondents as required by the Supreme Court Rules. Roy‚s address was mentioned as „Booker prize winner‰, Patkar‚s as, „Leader NBA‰, and Prashant Bhushan as „Advocate Supreme Court‰. The address of all the petitioners was mentioned as „Bar Library No. 1‰. Secondly, the petition was signed by only one of the petitioners though according to the rules it should have been signed by all five of the petitioners. Thirdly, the affidavit in support of the petition was signed by only one of the petitioners though it purports to be on behalf of two of them. Lastly, the petition did not contain the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of India, which is a mandatory requirement of the Contempt of Court‚s Act. And that is quite apart from the absurdity of the charges of assault and threats made in the petition against Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy, and Prashant Bhushan. Even the local police station had refused to register the FIR of the petitioners on these charges. Despite these defects, the Court entertained the petition and notices were issued, requiring Roy, Patkar and Prashant Bhushan to be present in Court in person on every hearing of the case.
In these circumstances, Roy in her affidavit in reply, while asserting her right to be present at the demonstration and setting out the facts of what happened there, also expressed her indignation at such a petition being entertained at all by the Court. Her affidavit went on to say,
„On the grounds that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy, the Chief Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the judicial inquiry into the Tehelka scandal, even though it involves matters of national security and corruption in the highest places.‰
„Yet when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated petition in which all the three respondents happen to be people who have publicly though in markedly different ways questioned the policies of the government and severely criticized a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice.‰
„It indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme court is doing its own reputation considerable harm.‰
The Court went on to hold that the above paragraphs of Roy‚s affidavit themselves amounted to contempt since they imputed improper motives to the Court. The Court has thus directed the issue of a second contempt notice on this basis!
In the Constitution of India the Supreme Court and the High Courts were seen as watchdog bodies, independent of the executive, and entrusted with the task of seeing that all institutions function in accordance with the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. They were assigned with powers not only to declare and set aside Executive acts of Government, but also to strike down (even declare unconstitutional) laws made by Parliament and the State Legislatures.
In stifling all criticism by the threatened exercise of the power of contempt, the issue in a democratic society is ultimately one of the accountability of the judiciary itself. In order to stifle free speech and comments on the Courts, even an occasional exercise of this power is enough to deter most persons from saying anything that might annoy their Lordships. Perhaps the most important reason for lack of reforms in the judiciary is the reluctance of the Press to write about and discuss the state of affairs within it for fear of contempt.
Is it not possible that the Court even the Supreme Court can abuse its powers of contempt and use them against persons who criticize the court or its actions? Ironically, the very issue of the second contempt notice to Roy itself validates her criticism of the Court in her affidavit. In fact the Court tacitly accepts the validity of her criticism by itself saying that „almost every one of the rules framed by this Court have been violated‰, by the petition. What does a citizen like Roy make of the fact that the Court does not proceed against the petitioners who misled the Court by filing a false and concocted petition and who get up in Court and say without justification that they have lost confidence in the Court and that the case should be transferred to another Court.
The present contempt of court Act says that even the truth of the imputation could not be pleaded in defense.
It is for this reason that Arundhati Roy‚s case is a test case in which the right of a citizen to criticize the Courts and discuss its motivations is pitted against the power of the Courts to punish for contempt.
Is it really necessary to enforce respect for the judiciary without scrutiny of its performance? Is there something particularly holy about Courts and judges that even a citizen who has proof of the fact and is prepared to face action for civil and criminal defamation cannot criticize them? Why is defamation (which is actionable in both civil and criminal proceedings) not a sufficient safeguard to protect the reputations of judges and Courts, if that is considered sufficient for all other classes or citizens? These are uncomfortable questions, but they need to be answered. They need to be urgently addressed by the Judiciary itself, the government and above all by the citizens.
Today the supreme court decided in the contempt case and ordered one day imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine and If fine is not paid more imprisonment to Arundhati Roy. We fell very sorry for the judgment issued today by the supreme court. We demand public debate on the issue of accountability and scrutiny of the Supreme and High Court.


Rohit Prajapati
Dr. Maya Valecha
Trupti Shah
Kritbhai Bhatt
Thakorbhai Shah
Sudhir Biniwale
Anand Mazgaonkar
Swati Desai
Michael Mazgaonkar
Rajnibhai Dave
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, VADODARA , GUJARAT, INDIA