0704
04 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS CASE: In Re Arundhati Roy
Case Name: In Re Arundhati Roy
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi
Equivalent Citations: Cases referred
Re:Vinay Chandra Mishra AIR 1995 SC 2348
Re: Harijai Singh & Anr. 1996 (6) SCC 466
Laws Involved:
The Constitution of India.
Contempt of Court Act
Facts:
This
case is a Suo-moto contempt petition which is initiated by the court itself
against the respondent, named Arundhati Roy, a prize-winning author.
During the period
of writ petition of Narmada Bachao Andolan, the court issued some environmental
damages and have also suggested for the displacement of the communities that
were living nearby due to the development activities of the dam or the
reservoir on the river Narmada.
According to the
order of the supreme court, the height of the dam should be increased, but the respondent
criticized this decision of the court and subsequently started a protest in
front of the supreme court by the andolan members and the respondent
herself.
This was led the basis of the complaint filed by the police. During the proceedings, all the respondent denied all the allegations regarding the inappropriate banners and slogans.
With denial,
the respondents also criticized the court for the proceedings.
Arundhati Roy said that
the judges were so busy, and with that the chief justice of our country has
also refused to allow a sitting judge to head the judicial enquiry into the TAHELKA
SCANDAL instead that the matter involves national security and corruption in
the highest places. Yet they have also questioned the policies of the
government and severely criticized the recent judgement of the supreme court,
after all this in fact the local has also not reacted to this matter.
According to Arundhati’s
statement, supreme court was doing all this to save their own reputation and
credibility to considerable harm.
Because of the
above allegations, the Suo-Motu proceedings were initiated against the
respondent for questioning or imputing the motives of the court.
Then in her reply
to affidavit, she stressed on her continuous dissent against the decision of
the court. Then she believed that this matter is not only about the court’s
judgement, its about her right to express her opinions as a citizen as well as
a writer also. As a writer, she believes that it is a responsibility for her to
raise voice against these cases and claim for justice.
Parties Contentions
Court
1. The court has stated all the allegations false,
with that they has also said that the banners and the slogans were
inappropriate for the masses and this will lead to the misrepresentation in
front of the masses.
2. Secondly, conducting the protests in the way that it was
held by the respondents was totally a wrongful conduct and illegal approach in
its nature.
3. Thirdly, every individual should follow the basic
integrity to maintain social relation and dignity of the apex court.
Respondent
1. Arundhati Roy- the respondent who is also an award
winning author stated that she should be free to express her opinion under
right to express an individual’s opinion or we can say that freedom of
expression.
2. Secondly, the decision passed by the apex
court was inappropriate because in the name of development, the nearby
residences were ordered to replace from that area, which will affect those poor
families.
Issues:
In
this case, the issue was about the court’s decision, that the height of the
reservoir dam should be increased and for a time being, due to the development
purposes.
The nearby
residences should move from there which was not acceptable by the respondent
and claimed that this decision was not appropriate and can make those families
homeless and was also seeking claim for the right to express one’s personal
opinions that is freedom of speech.
Secondly, she also
questioned the judiciary for their malfunctioned system and also alleged that
the top most personnel were corrupted and not doing their job properly.
Thirdly, seeking
right to opinion does not mean that the respondent or any party have the right
to condemn the judicial system or the decisions by the judiciary.
Judgement
The
court stated that freedom of speech and expression does guarantee by the
constitution of India but they are followed with some reasonable restrictions
that were imposed by law, which majorly includes that the basic dignity and
integrity of the court and judiciary should be maintained.
Then
the respondent’s argument was considered as irrelevant, and the issue was raised
that whether truth could be pleaded as defense to contempt or not. As the reply
affidavit was the main contemptuous part of the whole matter as it contains the
wildest allegations against the court and the whole judiciary system.
So the court considered that the whole affidavit will not be
considered for contempt accept the alleygating part of the affidavit as the
allegations were questioning the integrity of the court and was also harming
the reputation of the apex court and it’s judgement. As according to the court,
the criticism of the court or lowering the reputation of the court will not be
acceptable by the system. And if any individual does so, being having the
knowledge that the comments made were irrelevant, in that case the individual
is responsible for the honour harm of the renowned institution.
So that the court considered that the statements made by the respondent
was totally a wrongful contention and the petition will be considered as
absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated petition. As the case was also
concerned with national security and corruption in the highest places. It was
also considered as intentional criticism.
So, accordingly the court found that the respondent is guilty of
criminal contempt and because of that she was sentenced to one day imprisonment
and was also imposed with Rs. 2000 fine with the proviso stating that if she
fails to pay the amount of fine, in that case she would be imprisoned for 3
months.
No comments:
Post a Comment