IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY - CONTEMNOR versus -

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 06-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY-CONTEMNOR 
MARCH 6, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15. 
Contempt-Law of Contempt-Enactment-Held, the purpose is to secure 
public respect and confidence in judicial processes and to instil confidence of 
the common man in the institution of Judiciary. 
Contempt-Fair criticism-Distinction betwee~onduct of the Court-
Commenting of-Subject to good faith and in public interest which could be 
checked from surrounding circumstances including the knowledge and intention 
v,, 
'e person. 
Contempt-Suo-motu proceedings-Held, Contemptuous part of the 
affidavit demonstrates the wrong done to public-It weakens the faith of public 
in general-ft scandalizes the authority of the Court~-Thus contempt 
pro_ceedings could be initiated against the contemnor-On facts, contemnor 
held guilty of contempt and sentenced 
Conten1pt-Suo-motu proceedings-Motive-Held, when action is taken 
at the instance of the Court, there is no nzotive and prejudice on the part of 
the Judge in initiating the proceedings. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Criminal Contempt-Defamatory statements made in pleading/Petition/ F 
Affidavit-Amounts to contempt unless it is shown that such statements are 
made in good faith by the contemnor while discharging his public duties/ 
functions-Penal Code, 1860-Section 499. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(/), 19(2), 129 & 215; 
Right of free expression-Limitation-Held, if a person tries to undermine 
the dignity of the Court, Court can invoke its power under Article 129 or 215 
to initiate Contempt proceeding, if it is found that there is a direct attac/c on 
the Institution itself 
213 
G 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A . 
An Organisation called Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a Writ Petition 
in this Court. The main issue in the petition was about the construction of 
Sardar Sarova·r Reservoir l>a_m in Gujarat and its adverse- impact on 
environment and displacement of people fronf their ancestral homes. 
Respondent, a writer, who is n9t a _party to the said writ proceedings, 
published an article on the plight of the residents of the area where proposal 
B . for· construction of Dam had been initiated, in an English Magazine as well 
as in a book written by her. Expressing its displeasure on the distorted writing, 
this Court .obsen:ed that Judicial process and Judicial.institution cannot be 
permitted to be. scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation of rig~ts 
in such a blatant manner as had been done by the respondent. However, the 
C Court did not initiate Contempt proceedings against the respondent in the 
larger interest of the issues in the petition pending in the Court, viz., Oustee's 
rehabilitation and resettlement. Subsequently, the Court pronounc;ed its 
judgment. 
Thereafter, Contempt Petition was filed by some of the Advocates 
D alleging that respondent 'led a huge crowd and held a 'Dharna' in front of 
this Court and shouted slogans ascribing lack of integrity and dishonesty to 
this Court and when the petitioners protested they were attacked and assaulted 
by the respondents. In the Contempt proceedings, notices were issued . 
. Re_spondents filed affidavits admitting the holding of 'Dharna' outside the 
E Supreme Court by the activists of 'Narmada Bachao Andolan' and oustees 
aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court relating to building of the Dam on 
the Narmada River, but Respondent No. 3 in lier affidavit made specific 
contemptuous remarks against this Court. However, in view of denial of the 
alleged involvement in shouting abusive slogans against the Court, the 
Contempt proceeding was dropped. But in view of the contemptuous remarks 
F 
made in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3~ suo-motu contempt 
proceedi~g had been initiated against respondent No. 3. The Court_ found 
Respondent No. 3, had prima facie committed contempt of this Court. A Notice 
was issued to her to show cause -as to why Contempt proceedings should not 
be initiated against her for the offending statements made in her ttffidavit. 
G 
Respondent-Contem~or raised preliminary objection that the Bench/ 
Judge which ordered to issue notice in Contempt Petition should not be a party 
to the present proceeding; and that respoildent-contemnor apprehended bias 
on the part of Judge/Bench to whom respondent claims to have allegedly 
attributed motives; and that on the ground of a reference made to the 
H Cons

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.