The ``higher judiciary'' in the country today came in for sharp criticism for sending the Booker prize winner, Arundhati Roy, to jail for contempt of court.

Senior editors, including Prabhash Joshi, Ajit Bhattacharjea, Vinod Mehta and N. Ram joined Ms. Roy at a press conference here to challenge the Criminal Contempt of Court Act, 1971. They, along with Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and freelance writer Prafulla Bidwai, said that it was time to create public opinion against what they called ``intolerance'' of the ``higher judiciary'' to criticism and comment.

Ms. Roy, who was released today after serving a symbolic one-day sentence in prison, said ``I stand by what I have said in my affidavit and I have served the sentence which the Supreme Court imposed on me. I spent a night in prison, trying to decide whether to pay the fine or serve out a three- month sentence instead. Paying the fine does not in any way mean that I have apologised or accepted the judgment. I decided that paying the fine was the correct thing to do, because I have made the point I was trying to make. To take it further would be to make myself into a martyr for a cause that is not mine alone. It is for India's free press to fight to patrol the boundaries of its freedom which the law of contempt, as it stands today, severely restricts and threatens. I hope the battle will be joined.''

Ms. Roy said,`` (For the Supreme court), it is not just what you say, nor its correctness or justification, but who says it which determines whether or not it constitutes criminal contempt.'' She quoted the instances of the Chief Justice of India saying at a legal workshop in Kerala that ``20 per cent of the judges across the board may be corrupt and they bring the entire judiciary to disrepute'' and a former Law Minister's public comment that the ``Supreme Court, composed of the elements of the elite class, had unconcealed sympathy for the haves'' and said this was not deemed to be contempt of court because it was said by experts/insiders.

Commenting on the ``magnanimity of law'' on account of her being a woman, Ms. Roy said she was puzzled. ``Surely women can do without this kind of inverse discrimination that is unconstitutional and insulting to all women.'' To a question, Ms. Roy said she accepted the authority of the court inasmuch as she filed an affidavit and did appear before it.