Writer Vikram Seth, during his short visit to Delhi for the ICCR lit fest,had spoken with premonition on what he aptly described as the danda orthe law of the land: "It would be a great pity if there were no balance inthe use of power by either the writers or the court ... it would be a terriblepity if we were to feel muzzled. Activists or not, if we were to look over ourshoulder every time we wrote, it would be a thousand pities. It would be athousand pities if people mistrusted the courts because it were perceived to beunjustly crushing the other possible champions of the people."
Something that seemed to find an echo among the large and colourful gathering ofpeople outside the main gate of the Supreme Court of India,including several hundred people from the Narmada Valley -- "To support free speech; for judicial accountability; in solidarity with ArundhatiRoy" -- when news of Justice G.B.Pattnaik and R.P.Sethi sentencing her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine ofRs.2000/- trickled out in the morning today. In case of default in the payment of fine, "the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months".
The gathering was abuzz with the irony of the recent situation where opendefiance of Supreme Court verdicts has been expounded upon on national televisionby various VHP, um, spokespersons.
Soon after the verdict was announced Roy was whisked away without the opportunity of addressing a very large number of National and International press and media. In a handwritten note written after thejudgement she said,
"I stand by what I said. And I am prepared to suffer the consequences. The dignity of the court will be upheld by the quality of theirjudgements. The quality of this judgment will be assessed by the people of the country. The message is clear. Any citizen who dares to criticise the court does so at his or her peril. Thejudgement only confirms what I said in my affidavit. It is a sad realization for me, because I feel the Supreme Court of India is an important institution and the citizens of India have high expectations from it".
(Forbackground to the case, please see the links under 'Also See' on the RHS)
'Against Natural Justice'
The Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, Amod Kanthsaid the police would await payment of Rs 2000 fine by Roy failing which shewould have to undergo imprisonment for another three months as per thedirections of the Supreme Court.
Because Roy had been taken to Tihar Jail by the SHO of Tilak Marh Policestation, it was left to Prashant Bhushan, human rights activist and Medha Patkarto address the crowd and field queries from journalists.
When asked what the next course of action would be, Bhushan said "It isup to her to decide about it," adding that a writ petition seeking reviewof the SC judgement will be filed by tomorrow.
The writ petition is on the basis of the principles of natural justice whichholds that nobody can be a judge in their own cause. An application onRoy's behalf askingJustice Pattanaik to excuse himself from the proceedings and transfer this caseto some other court, on the ground that since the allegation against Roy wasthat she had attributed motives to him (he being the judge who had issued noticein the first contempt petition), she had a reasonable apprehension of bias onhis part, had earlier been rejected. Her application had stated that in hearing and deciding this contemptpetition, Justice Pattanaik would be sitting as a judge in his own cause. TheCourt however had not taken kindly to that application; Justice Pattanaik had remarked that raising thisobjection was malafide.and that it should have been raised earlier.
We Are Proud Of Arundhati
"Ab to laRat hii laRat hai," ("Now it's fighting andfighting") said NBA activist Medha Patkar. Describing Roy's arrest as a"big challenge", she said the judgement has "given us reason tofight against commercialisation as manifest in Narmada project with a new spirit... We will also go on a hunger strike till she is in the jail". Patkar also singled outthe gross gender bias in thejudgement (see blurb and the extract below) and was emphatic that if by non-payment of thefine and resulting imprisonment, the NBA cause would gain wider attention, shewould be all for supporting Roy, should she decide so.
"We are proud of Arundhati. We are not at all proud of our judiciary anymore. If a writ petition is filed I hope then that the Chief Justice would makethe judiciary behave and raise its dignity."
Pointing out that Roy in her affidavit to the Court had submitted that "it(judgement) indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the Court tosilence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those whodisagree with it," Bhushan said, "the court judgement confirms whatshe had stated in her affidavit...This is a very importantsetback to the freedom of the common citizen to discuss matters ofenormous public significance, even as the courts are intervening in such issuesday in and day out"
Support - In Solidarity
For a change, unlike the previous hearings, when visitors were prevented from being witness to the proceedings, MedhaPatkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Vandana Shiva, Ecologist, Praful Bidwai, Columnist, andNikhil, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghathan, were allowed to be present when the judgement was read.
A large number of social and human rights activists were present in solidarity.The gathering included some of the country's best known activists from variousfields -- education, human rights, literature, trade unions, journalism.
The support was not limited to those gathered there. There were reports ofprotests at the Kerala High Court and various parts of the country andbeyond.
Over three hundred members of the Italian Parliament are said to have writtento the President of India conveying their support, saying that "the Italianpeople who read and support Arundhati Roy….. appreciate the nobility of thepolitical, moral and literary commitment".
Noted intellectual Noam Chomsky has conveyed his "full support" "and greatadmiration for her courage". In a message from the United States, a group ofwell known writers and film personalities -- including Toni Morrison,William Styron, Harold Pinter, actors Susan Sarandon, Robert Redford, LiamNeeson, Natasha Richardson and film directors Woody Allen, Bernardo Bertolucci,Jonathan Demme, Ismail Merchant and Arthur Penn -- have written to the President,K.R. Narayanan, calling this case, "a vital test for India". Writer Salman Rushdie and many others are already on record in their support.
The Court's Judgement -- Extracts
"Fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution of Judiciaryand its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith andin public interest.'' But, Ms. Roy ``during the whole of the proceeding has notshown any repentance or remorse and persistently and consistently tried tojustify her action which, prima facie, was found to be contemptuous.''
"To frustrate the present proceedings, the respondent has resorted toall legal tactics and pretenses.'' All the citizens could not be permitted tocomment upon the conduct of courts in the name of fair criticism which, if notchecked, would destroy the institution itself.
"When a scurrilous attack is made in relation to a pending proceedingand the noticee states that the issuance of notice was intended to silencecriticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree withit, it is a direct attack on the institution itself, rather than the conduct ofan individual judge,'' the Bench said.
"It is difficult for us either to shrug off or to hold the accusationsmade as comments of an outspoken ordinary man and permit the wrongheaded to errtherein, as observed by Lord Atkin.''
"The respondent, who is stated to be an author of name and fame, haslanded herself in the dock of the court, apparently by drifting away from thepath on which she was traversing by contributing to art and literature''.
"Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no one is abovethe law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. Forachieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assignedthe special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courtsthat the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concepts.
``The need of the time is of restoring confidence amongst the people in theindependence of the judiciary. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to bemaintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the courts, which thepeople possess, cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished orwiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person''.
"If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively andtrue to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity andauthority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.Otherwise the very corner-stone of our constitutional scheme will give way andwith it will disappear the rule of law and the civilised life in the society''.
"All citizens cannot be permitted to attribute motive to the court orthe judges if public faith in judiciary has to be preserved. Even the freedom ofspeech of the press is same as that guaranteed to the common man under Article19 of the Constitution, which also provides for reasonable restrictions. Thejudiciary has been under a constant threat in recent times from within andoutside, and to restore the confidence of people in judiciary, contempt of courtprovision should be invoked if anybody was found to flout the dignity of thecourt or its mandate. No citizen, howsoever mighty, powerful or popular, couldescape the contempt laws if he or she lowers the dignity of the court orscandalises office."
...
"On the basis of the record, the position of law our findings on variouspleas raised and the conduct of the respondent, we have no doubt in our mindthat the respondent has committed the criminal contempt of this Court byscandalizing its authority with malafide intentions. The respondent is,therefore, held guilty for the contempt of court punishable under Section 12 ofthe Contempt of Courts Act.
"As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or remorse, nolenient view should be taken in the matter. However, showing the magnanimityof law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and hoping thatbetter sense and wisdom shall dawn upon the respondent in the future toserve the cause of art and literature by her creative skill and imagination,we feel that the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to symbolicimprisonment besides paying a fine of Rs.2000/-.(emphasis added).
"While convicting the respondent for the contempt of the Court, we sentenceher to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In caseof default in the payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo simpleimprisonment for three months."
"In the instant case the respondent has not claimed to be possessing anyspecial knowledge of law and the working of the institution of judiciary. Shehas only claimed to be a writer of repute. ….. She has not claimed to havemade any study regarding the working of this Court or judiciary in the countryand claims to have made the offending imputations in her proclaimed right offreedom of speech and expression as a writer."
