[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: July 30 Articles on SSP Supreme Court Hearing
Hindustan Times, July 30
"Medha, Arundhati violated SC order"
New Delhi, July 29
Amicus curae K.K. Venugopal today proposed that the Supreme Court 'warn'
Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy and Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha
Patkar not to make derogatory remarks hereafter on the court's orders on
the Sardar Sarovar project.
Mr Venugopal, who has been asked to assist the court after the three-judge
bench headed by Chief Justice A.S. Anand took a serious view of the
statements of Ms Roy and Ms Patkar, noted that the two have clearly
violated the apex court's orders restraining them from commenting on the
pending case.
As for Ms Roy, the amicus curae said the court may issue her a warning.
Alternatively, the court may dismiss objectionable references in Ms Roy's
book, 'The Greater Common Good', as an 'irresponsible statement', Mr
Venugopal added. The court adjourned the case until Thursday.
On July 22, the court, taking strong exception to Ms Arundhati Roy's
references in her book and Ms Medha Patkar's Press statements on the
subject, had appointed Mr Venugopal as amicus curae to assist the court on
the course of action against the two Narmada activists. The Supreme Court
has been hearing a petition filed by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)
challenging the construction of the big dam on the ground that a large
number of oustees had not been rehabilitated so far by the Government.
The apex court while allowing the Gujarat Government to raise the height of
the dam from 80 to 85 metres had directed the State Government to take
steps to rehabilitate the displaced people.
--------------------------------------
The Hindu, July 30
NBA case: SC adjourns hearing on Gujarat plea
By T. Padmanabha Rao
NEW DELHI, JULY 29. The Supreme Court, in the `Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)
matter', today adjourned, until August 5, further hearing on the
interlocutory application (IA) from the State of Gujarat.
The application had complained of ``a consistent and persistent approach on
the part of the petitioner (Narmada Bachao Andolan) in ignoring Apex
Court's directions passed from time to time, more particularly, in relation
with publication of various matters in different newspapers, journals and
other media touching upon the matter under consideration of the court'' (in
the main PIL petition from the petitioner).
The Chief Justice, Dr. A. S. Anand, Mr. Justice S. P. Barucha and Mr.
Justice B. N. Kirpal, were on the Bench.
The Bench, at the last hearing, after perusing various statements and press
releases by the NBA and also certain statements in an article (touching on
the Narmada Dam controversy) by Ms. Arundhati Roy, Booker Prize winner,
published in an issue dated May 24 of Outlook magazine, as well as the book
``The Greater Common Good'' written by her - observed that `prime facie' it
appeared that there was an attempt ``to undermine the dignity of the court
and influence the course of justice''.
The Bench had then appointed Mr. K. K. Venugopal, senior advocate and
president, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), as an `amicus curiae' to
assist the court in regard to any action required to be taken in this
matter as well as the main petition.
Earlier, Mr. Venugopal contended that, on the basis of material annexed to
the Gujarat IA, the petitioner NBA and its leader, Ms. Medha Patkar, had
`contravened' the Apex Court's order dated April 11, 1997, which prohibited
the parties from going to the press or taking recourse to any other forum
or media.
He also pointed out that the court's order dated November 5, 1998 again
directed that none of the parties to the litigation (main PIL petition)
shall make any comment by any means whatsoever touching upon or concerning
merits of litigation pending before the court ``save at its own risk of
being punished for contempt of court''.
He contended that the NBA and its leader were ``in contempt of the Apex
Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing
civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the orders of this Honourable Court
dated April 11, 1997 and November 5, 1998.
In regard to the comments about the judiciary, it would appear to be the
petitioner's (NBA's) right to freedom of speech in regard to a matter of
great public importance and would bring the case within the protection of
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech) as the
statements were ``not of a nature which is tantamount to scandalising the
court,'' the amicus curiae submitted and added that one had to accept the
sincerity of the petitioner and its leader, Ms. Medha Patkar.
On certain comments of Ms. Arundhati Roy vis-a-vis the Apex Court in her
article in Outlook magazine and the book `The Greater Common Good', Mr.
Venugopal submitted that she who had passionate concern for the tribals had
done greater disservice to her cause and also to the Apex Court which, in a
number of cases, intervened to ensure that basic rights and human rights of
common man, underprivileged, illiterate masses were protected. One course
of action that the court consider could be to hold her responsible and warn
her, counsel submitted.
The appropriate course to be followed by the court against the NBA and its
leader was not by way of punishing Ms. Medha Patkar and other organisers of
the NBA by a jail sentence or fine, for `contempt' but on the other hand,
the more appropriate course would be to remove the petitioner (NBA) from
the array of parties as petitioner in the main PIL writ petition and to
substitute any other petitioners in the very same batch of PIL petitions,
to continue the main PIL proceedings with the existing pleadings from the
present stage, Mr. Venugopal submitted.
The court might even consider, in the first instance, to warn the
petitioner once again of the consequences, on the very cause it sought to
espouse, before deleting the petitioner as a party to the case, the amicus
curiae submitted.