PRESS STATEMENT

SAHMAT , New Delhi
6 March 2002

Statement on the Arundhati Roy case

We are dismayed and pained at the Supreme Court judgment harshly
convicting writer and activist Arundhati Roy of contempt of court for
her criticism of the judicial verdict in the Narmada case, among
other things.

The sentence is far from "symbolic" and entails three months'
imprisonment if Roy does not pay a Rs 2,000 fine.

The judgment will be widely seen as discouraging and deterring any
criticism of judicial verdicts, even if it is reasonable, factually
correct, logically sound, and in the public interest. This has
distressing implications for the freedom of expression and a writer's
ability to communicate creatively. Its impact on the media, which
already has to battle growing political and commercial interference,
will be deleterious.

While expressing our solidarity with Arundhati Roy, and the heroic
movement of the people of the Narmada Valley, we call upon the
Supreme Court to review its judgment.

Signed by
Irfan Habib, Geeta Hariharan, Prabhat Patnaik, Sukumar Muralidharan,
Achin Vanaik, Zoya Hasan, Rajendra Prasad, Shabnam Hashmi, Kamal
Mitra Chenoy, Vishnu Nagar, Praful Bidwai and Others

_____




MASS MEETING OUTSIDE TIHAR JAIL, DELHI IN SUPPORT OF ARUNDHATI ROY.

PLEASE JOIN MASS MEETING OUTSIDE TIHAR JAIL, DELHI SHARP AT 10.00 AM ON
7-3-2002 TO PROTEST AGAINST ARUNDHATI ROY'S UNJUST SENTENCE BY THE INDIAN
SUPREME COURT WHICH IS KOW-TOWING TO BIG MONEY ELEMENTS. NIGHT VIGIL
CONTINUES.

_____




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