In Re: Arundhati Roy vs

Unknown on 6 March, 2002

Presented by:-
Radhika Biyani
Vaishnavi Chavan
Nilesh Budhiwant
Content

1. Highlights On The Case

2. Facts Of The Case
3. Issues Raised
4. Laws Laid Down
5. Judgement
Highlights On the Case
 In Re: Arundhati Roy
vs Unknown on 6
March, 2002

 In this case ‘suo moto’

 Bench: G Pattanaik, R proceedings were put on
Sethi the respondent

 JUDGMENT - Sethi, J.  As an author she made

comments which were
“prima facie”.
 Petitioner-Narmada
Bachao Andolan  During Proceedings
didn’t show any
repentence or remorse
 Respondent- and didn’t provide show
Arundhati Roy. cause notice.

 The Respondent tried to

frustate the present
proceedings and
resorted legal tactics.
Facts Of The Case
 A petition was filed by a Narmada Bachao Andolan for a Dam which would result
of people living there submerging due to it.

 The court gave an order which was resented by both Petitioner and Respondent

 The Respondent then wrote comments in a magazine relating to the case which
was ‘prima facie’,which scandalized and violated the judicial process of court.

 It was also alleged that at a dharna organised in front of Supreme Court she had
raised improper slogans against the Court.

 When issued a show cause notice, she denied having raised such slogans. She
further commented on the supreme court judges.

 The court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, she was to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
Issues Raised
 1. Whether it would be permissible to initiate contempt proceedings for
scandalising the court where the contents of an affidavit cause no contempt to any
Judge personally but the action tried to cast an injury to the public by creating a
wrong impression in the mind of the people regarding integrity, ability and fairness
of the judiciary?

 2. Extent to which and circumstances in which fair criticism of Judge, court or its
functioning would be permissible under Article 19(1) (a) and (2)?

 3. Whether freedom of press is guaranteed separately from and is the same as

freedom of expression under Article 19(1)?

 4. How should the court deal with a case when a contemnor does not show any
repentance or remorse but persistently and consistently tried to justify the prima
facie contemptuous action and to frustrate the contempt proceedings?
Law Laid Down
 1. Proceedings under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act are distinguishable
from Section 15 of the said Act. When action is at the instance of the Court there
is no question of any motion of and prejudice from any Judge. Accepting the plea
raised by the respondent would amount to depriving all the Judges of the Court to
hear the matter and thus frustrate the contempt proceedings which cannot be the
mandate of law.

 2. The judiciary is not immune from criticism but when that criticism is based on
obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which is designed
to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public.

 3. Under the Constitution, there is no separate guarantee of the freedom of the

press and it is the same freedom of expression, which is conferred on all citizens
under Article 19(1). Any expression of opinion would therefore, be not immune
from the liability for exceeding the limits either under the law of defamation or
contempt of court or the other constitutional limitations under Article 19(2).
Judgement
 On the basis of the record,The Court found the respondent
committing Criminal Contempt

 By scandilizing its authority with malafide intentions.

 The respondent is, therefore, held guilty for the contempt of court
punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

 As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or

remorse, no lenient view .

 While convicting the respondent for the contempt of the Court, the
court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, the
respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.