NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN

V
UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1999 SC 3345
Interlocutory Application no. 14 of 1999 in Writ
Petition No. 319 0f 1994
Decided on October 15, 1999
 Bench

Dr. A.S. Anand ( Chief Justice)

S.P. Bharucha
B.N. Kirpal
Writ Petition of 1994

In April 1994, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a writ

petition inter alia supplicating that the Union of India
and different respondents ought to be controlled
from continuing with the development of the dam
and they ought to be requested to open the
conduits.
There had been many hearings over a period of 5
years. After one such hearing the Supreme Court
issued an order permitting the increase of the height
of the dam.
Facts

Interlocutory Application (I.A) has been filed by the

State of Gujarat bringing to the notice of the Court
how the petitioner-Narmada Bachao Andolan had
been reacting to the Interim Order of this Court
permitting the increase of the height of the dam and
about the threats of protests, public meetings and of
undertaking Satyagrahas etc., on account of that
order.
Facts

Reference was made particularly to:

 the interview of Ms. Medha Patkar which appeared in the
Hindustan Times of 27.6.1999 and some other newspaper
reports and press releases issued by the petitioner.
 the article which appeared in the Weekly News Magazine
‘Outlook’ and to some portions of a Book titled "The
Greater Common Good" by Ms. Arundhati Roy.
Facts
 Prima facie there is contempt of court.
 However, the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice
A.S. Anand decided to appoint an Amicus Curie to get
advice.
Facts

 K.K Venugopal , Senior Advocate, President of the Supreme

Court Bar Association, was requested to act as Amicus Curie
and conclude his arguments so that the Supreme Court can
take a decision.
Issues

 Whether the statements , press releases and interviews by

petitioner NBA, its leaders and Arundhati Roy goes past
Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by Article
19(1)(a)?
 Whether contempt of court proceedings should be
initiated against Arundhati Roy and leaders of NBA?
Relevant Provisions

Constitution of India

Article 19(1) (a)- All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression.
Article 19(2)- Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation
of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such
law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.
Article 129- The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the
powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Contempt of courts Act 1971
Section 2(b)-
“Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a
court;
Contempt of Courts Act 1971

Section 2 (c)-
“Criminal Contempt” means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
Contempt of Courts Act 1971

Section 13- Contempt is not punishable in certain cases.—

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force,—
 (a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a
contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt
is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice;
 (b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt
of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is
satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for
invoking the said defence is bonafide.
Amicus Curie’s report
  K.K Venugopal, the "amicus curie" to suggest action against
Arundhati Roy and against NBA leader Medha Patkar for
their "irresponsible" acts of disrespect to the court, quickly
reframed his submissions to plead that the authoress can
be warned for their folly of painting the Court as "brutal"
and "inhuman”.
Arundhati Roy’s Writings

The "amicus curie" extracted three paragraphs from

Arundhati Roy's book "The Greater Common Good" and from
the article with the same title in the Outlook magazine which
were objectionable and were sarcastic, wrong and in bad
taste.
Objectionable Passages by Arundhati Roy

I stood on a hill and laughed out loud.

I knew I was looking at a civilization older than Hinduism,
slated-sanctioned (by the highest court in the land) -to be
drowned this monsoon when the waters of the Sardar
Sarovar reservoir will rise to submerge it."
Objectionable Passages by Arundhati
Roy
"Why did I laugh?
Because I suddenly remembered the tender concern with
which the Supreme Court Judges in Delhi (before vacating
the legal stay on further construction of the Sardar Sarovar
dam) had enquired whether tribal children in the
resettlement colonies would have children's park to play in.
Objectionable Passages by Arundhati
Roy

“Most tribal people-or let's say most small farmers-have as

much use for money as a Supreme Court Judge has for a
bag of fertilizer."
About Arundhati Roy's word:

 Made mockery of the judicial process.

 Questioned its credibility in the dam issue.
 Claimed that the court acted brutally and in an inhuman
manner in allowing the height of the dam to be increased
 Written a series of critical articles in a magazine which were
published later as the book, ‘The Greater Common Good’
even after the apex court order restraining it.
 Humiliated the judiciary, thus had clearly committed
contempt.
About Arundhati Roy's word:

 Venugopal but said in court that Arundhati Roy should be

let off with a warning.
 The approach towards her need not be punitive as she had
donated over Rs 15 lakh, the proceeds from the book, to
the cause of tribals and showed real concern for the
illiterate mass of people. 
About Medha Patkar’s words:

Venugopal said Narmada Bachao Andolan chief Medha

Patkar’s observation that the Indian judiciary was still a
colonial legacy was also in bad taste.
 Venugopal, however, pleaded Medha Patkar's remarks
have been matter of debates in broader sense.
 Thus, it should be treated as a fair comment and not seen
as any attempt to ridicule the Court for its orders in the
NBA case.
About Medha Patkar’s words:
 Medha Patkar as well as NBA had committed civil
contempt of court since there was "willful disobedience"
of the two orders.
 Scrutinized the campaign carried out by NBA and its
leader Medha Patkar on the media and in Press
statements.
 Her threat of committing suicide by "Jal Samarpan“.
 Clearcut attempt to prejudice the Court order permitting
further construction of the dam and an interference in
the administration of justice by adopting such pressure
tactics.
ANALYSIS

After hearing Amicus Curie, Court assessed that:

 Petitioners have at first sight ignored the break orders
given by this Court on 11-4-1997 and 5-11-1998
 So, it could be Civil Contempt of Court under Section 2(b)
of Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Analysis

 The applicant NBA and its chief Ms. Medha Patkar have
intentionally offered remarks on forthcoming procedures.
 The threats held out by the petitioners and its leaders
appear to be an attempt to prejudice or interfere with the
due course of judicial proceedings.
So, it could be Criminal contempt of court as per Section
2 (c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Analysis
 Arundhati Roy used her literally fame by misinforming the public and
projecting in a totally incorrect manner, how the proceedings relating
to Resettlement and Rehabilitation had shaped in this Court
 Distorted various directions given by the Court during the last about 5
years.
 Her writings have the tendency to create prejudice against this Court.
 She seems to be wholly ignorant of the task of the Court.
 The way in which she has given twist to the proceedings and orders of
the Court is in bad taste and not expected from any citizen, to say the
least.
So, it is evidently criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of
Contempt of Courts Act , 1971
Decision of Court on the First Issue

 Freedom of speech and expression [ Article 19 (1)(a)] does

not include freedom to distort orders of the Court and
present incomplete and a one side picture deliberately,
which has the tendency to scandalize the Court.
  Indeed, freedom of speech and expression is "life blood of
democracy" but this freedom is subject to certain
qualifications [19 (2) ] including the prohibition on
scandalizing the Court to protect the administration of
justice.
Decision of Court on the second issue

 Court is not inclined to take action in contempt against

Medha Patkar, Shripad Dharmadhikari and Arundhati Roy
because the Court's shoulders are broad enough to shrug
off their comments and because the focus should not shift
from the resettlement and rehabilitation of the outsees.
(Section 13 of Contempt of Court’s Act 1971)
Judgement

 It will be a negation of the rule of law if the courts were to

act under such pressure.
 The action of the petitioner and its leaders Ms. Medha
Patkar as well as writings of Ms. Arundhati Roy have caused
Court much anguish and not anger.
 After giving assurances to this Court, petitioners acted in
breach of the injunctions.
Judgement

 May be the parties were over-zealous in projecting their

point of view on a matter involving a large segment of tribal
population.
 They should not have given to themselves the liberty of
acting in the objectionable manner as already noticed.
“We are unhappy at the way the leaders of NBA and Ms.
Arundhati Roy have attempted to undermine the dignity of
the Court. We expected better behavior from them.”
Judgement

 Significance of the issue of resettlement of affected people,

stopped Court from further proceedings.
 Court trusted that above said words would fill the need.
 After the appointment of Amicus Curie, no one has
proceeded with objectionable works to the extent that the
judiciary is concerned.
Judgement

 The application (I.A.14) is accordingly disposed of

 Left the primary Writ Petition alone for further
proceedings.
 Court appreciated K.K Venugopal for the help delivered to
Court.
THANK YOU

ARSHA FATHIMA NAZIR

ROLL NO. 41
BATCH : 3/3 A