'If This Is Contempt, Then Send Her To Jail. She Is Ready For It'

Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) activist Medha Patkar and noted writerArundhati Roy today stood by the views expressed in their affidavits anddared the Supreme Court to proceed against them if it found the remarks"contemptuous".

Taking exception to the tenor of their affidavits filed in response to thecontempt notices, the Court had observed that "the tenor of the affidavitsmay itself be contemptuous."

A Bench of Justice G B Pattanaik and Justice Ruma Pal, after hearing counselfor advocate Prashan Bhushan, Patkar andRoy in person, reserved orders on a petition filed by some advocatesseeking action against them for raising derogatory remarks against thejudiciary and judges of the apex court during a "dharna" by NBA beforetheapex court last year.

Appearing for Patkar, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan contended that therewas a perception among the people that "the courts were far too removedfrom the reality and were using the contempt powers against those whocriticise judgements".

When the court pointedly asked about the derogatory remarks made in heraffidavit, the counsel said, "If this is contempt, then send her to jail.She is ready for it."

Roy, who argued for herself, said "I find theissuance of notice insulting to me. I stand by my affidavit. If you (thecourt) think it is contemptuous, please proceed against me." That was allshe argued in her defence.

Earlier, the court told Roy that nobody disputed her acclaimed writings andthe achievements she had in the field of literature. "But that does notmean you would impute motives," the Bench said. Justice Pal said, "Ifyou feel that we have a personal hysteria against you, your are wrong. We arehere to administer the rule of law."

The Court had issued notices to Patkar, Roy and Bhushan for allegedly raisingderogatory slogans against the apex court during a dharna outside the court inDecember last year protesting its decisions to allow construction of thecontroversial Narmada dam.

The court had simultaneously warned the petitioner advocates -- J R Parasher,Umed Singh and R K Virmani -- that if the allegations they had made against therespondents were found to be false, "you may also be sent to jail".

Bhushan pointed out several defects in the petition and said the"registry would not have entertained such a petition from anybody else.

When the Bench asked Bhushan as to why the assertions made in Patkar'saffidavit "be not taken as an affront to judiciary", the counselreplied she was of the opinion that she had the right to protest against allorgans of the state including the judiciary. The court said "There arepositive assertions in the petitions, which if established and proved will nodoubt amount to contempt".

Initiating the arguments, Additional Solicitor General Altaf Ahmed, whoseassistance was sought by the court, termed the tone and tenor of theresponse of Patkar and Roy to the court notices as improper.

He read out portions from the affidavits which he felt were "improperandsermonising the court".

All the three respondents - Prashant Bhushan, Patkar and Roy, whoparticipated in the protest dharna before the apex court, refuted the claimof the petitioner advocates that they raised any slogan derogatory to thejudiciary or questioning the integrity of the judges of the apex court.

The NBA was protesting against a majority judgement by a three-judge Benchwhich dismissed its petition seeking stoppage of work at the Sardar SarovarDam. However, the court had provided several conditions before commencementof further construction to raise the height of the dam.

The same three-judge Bench had later dismissed another petition filed byNBA seeking review of the earlier judgement. The protest rally took placewhen the review petition was pending before the court.

On the sidelines, Ms.Roy's husband was not allowed inside the court by the security staff, and inresponse the Bench was told by the Registry that as per rules only the litigantsand their counsel were allowed inside court rooms. Ms. Roy's husband was notallowed as no notice was issued to him.

Mr. Shanthi Bhushan pointed out that it was a normal practice in courtsacross the country to have open hearings, but the Bench clarified that exceptwhen cases were heard "in camera", proceedings before the court wereopen to the public