[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: Full text of S. Court order on NBA/Roy Contempt Issue
<excerpt>
<bold><underline>From SSNNL web-site (!!)
</underline></bold><center>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. 14 OF 1999
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 319 of 1994
Narmada Bachao Andolan ....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
ORDER
</center>
DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI
This petition 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 to RL 85 meters and about the threats
of protests, public meetings and of undertaking Satyagrahas etc. on
account of that order. Reference is 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.
Our attention has also been drawn to an 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,
On 22nd July, 1999, We made the following order:
"…. …. …. ….
At the outset, our attention has been drawn to certain statements,
press releases, interviews etc. given by the petitioners themselves or
by some others under the aegis of the petitioner - Narmada Bachao
Andolan. Copies of some of those statements, etc. have been filed
alongwith I.A. No. 14 by the State of Gujarat.
Our attention has also been drawn to an article in the weekly news
magazine "Outlook" dated May 24, 1999 under the title 'The Greater
Common Good' by Ms. Arundhati Roy. A book under the same title, i.e.
"The Greater Common Good" by Arundhati Roy. which appears to have been
dedicated to "The Narmada, and all the life she sustains and Shripad,
Nandini, SyIvie, Alok, Medha, Baba Amte and their colleagues in the
NBA", has also been brought to our notice.
We have gone through the statements, the press releases, the article
and certain portions of the book referred to above. Prime facie, it
appears to us that there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the
dignity of the Court and to influence the course of justice. These
writings, which present a rather one sided and distorted picture have
appeared inspite of our earlier directions restraining the parties from
going to the press, etc. during the pendency of the proceedings in this
Court.
However, before, we decide to proceed any further, we consider it
proper to appoint an amicus to advise the Court about the action, if
any, which is required to be taken in this respect as also in respect
of the writ petition itself.
We request Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate, President of the
Supreme Court Bar Association, to act as amicus and advise the court.
… … … … …"
After bearing learned amicus as well as other learned counsel appearing
in the case, who all rose above the case of their clients to assist the
Court we are of the opinion that the petitioner - NBA and its leader
Ms. Medha Patkar have knowingly made comments on pending proceedings
and have prima facie disobeyed the interim injunctions issued by this
Court on 11.4.1997 and 5.11.1998. Prima facie the threats held out by
the petitioners and its leaders also appeared to be an attempt to
prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
Litigants must realise that Courts
cannot be forced by pressure tactics to decide pending cases in the
manner in which the concerned party desires. It will be a negation of
the Rule of Law if the Court were to act under such pressure.
Some of the objectionable passages in the Book, "The Greater Common
Good" by Ms. Arundhati Roy are as follows:
"I stood on a hill and laughed out loud.
I had crossed the Narmada by boat from Jalsindhi and climbed the
headland on the opposite bank front where I could see, ranged across
the crowns of law, bald hills, the tribal hamlets of Sikka, Surung,
Neemgavan arid Domkhedi. I could see their airy, fragile homes. I could
see little children withlittler goats scuttling across the landscape
like motorized peanuts. I knew I was looking at a civilisation 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."
"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. The lawyers representing the Government had hastened to assure
them that indeed they would and what's more, that there were seesaws
and slides and swings in every park. I looked up at the endless sky and
down at the river rushing past and for a brief, brief moment the
absurdity of it all reversed my rage and I laughed. I meant no
disrespect."
"Who owns this land? Who owns its rivers? Its forests? Its fish? These
are huge questions. They are being taken hugely seriously by the State.
They are being answered in one voice by every institution at its
command - the army, the police, the bureaucracy, the courts. And not
just answered, but answered unambiguously, in bitter, brutal ways".
…. …. …. …. ….
"According to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984) the
government is not legally bound to provide a displaced person anything
but a cash compensation. Imagine that. A cash compensation to be paid
by an Indian government official to an illiterate tribal man (the women
get nothing) in a land where even the postman demands a tip for a
delivery. Most tribal people have no formal title to their land and
therefore cannot claim compensation amisary. 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 fertiliser."
Ms. Arundhati Roy is not a party to the proceedings pending in this
Court. She has, however, made comments on matters connected with the
case being fully alive to the pendency of the proceedings in this
Court. The comments made by her are prima facie a misrepresentation of
the proceedings in this Court. Judicial process and institution cannot
be permitted to be scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation
in such a blatant manner in which it has been done by her.
While hypersensitivity and peevishness have no place in judicial
proceedings - vicious stultification and vulgar debunking cannot be
permitted to pollute the stream of justice. Indeed under our
Constitution there are positive values like right to life, freedom of
speech and expression, but freedom
of speech and expression does not include freedom to distort orders of
the Court and present incomplete and a one side picture - deliberately,
which has the tendency to scandalise the Court. Whatever may be the
motive of Ms. Arundhati Roy, it is quite obvious that she decided to
use 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 and distorting various
directions given by the Court during the last about 5 years. The
writings referred to above have the tendency to create prejudice
against this Court. She seems to be wholly ignorant of the task of the
Court. The manner 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.
We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and
expression no party can be given a Iicence to misrepresent the
proceedings and orders of the Court and deliberately paint an
absolutely wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to
scandalise the Court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule. The right
of criticising, in good faith in private or public, a judgment of the
Court cannot be exercised, with malice or by attempting to impair the
administration of justice. Indeed, freedom of speech and expression is
'life blood of democracy" but this freedom is subject to certain
qualifications. An offence of scandalising the Court per se is one such
qualification, since that offence exists to protect the administration
of
justice and is reasonably justified and necessary in a democratic
society. It is not only an offence under the contempt of Courts act but
is sui generis. Courts are not unduly sensitive to fair comment or even
outspoken comments being made regarding their judgments and orders made
objectively, fairly and without any malice, but no one can be permitted
to distort orders of the Court and deliberately give a slant to its
proceedings, which have the tendency to scandalise the Court or bring
it to ridicule, in the larger interest of protecting administration of
justice.
The action of the petitioner and its leaders Ms. Medha Patkar as well
as writings of Ms. Arundhati Roy have caused us much anguish and when
we express our displeasure of the action of Ms. Arundhati Roy in making
distorted writings or the manner in which the leaders of the petitioner
Ms. Medha Patkar and Mr. Dharmadhikari have, after giving assurances to
this Court, acted in breach of the injunctions, we do so out of anguish
and not out of anger. May be the parties were over-zealous in
projecting their point of view on a matter involving a large segment of
tribal population, but 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
behaviour from them.
After giving this matter our thoughtful consideration and keeping In
view the importance of the issue of Resettlement and Rehabilitation of
the PAFS, which we have been monitoring for the last five years, we are
not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner,
its leaders or Ms. Arundhati Roy. We are of the opinion, in the larger
interest of the issues pending before us, that we need not pursue the
matter any further.
We, however, hope that what we have said above would serve the purpose
and the petitioner and its leaders would hereafter desist from acting
in a manner which has the tendency to interfere with the due
administration of justice or which violates the injunctions issued by
this Court from time to time.
After 22nd of July, 1999 when learned amicus was appointed, nothing has
come to our notice which may show that Ms. Arundhati Roy has continued
with her Objectionable writings insofar as the Judiciary is concerned.
She may have by now realised her mistake. We, therefore, consider it
appropriate to now let the matter rest here and not to pursue it any
further. The application (I.A.14) is accordingly disposed of.
Before parting with this order we wish to place on record our deep
appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the amicus, Shri K.K.
Venugopal, Senior Advocate and all other learned counsel appearing in
the case.
Let the main Writ Petition be now placed for directions on 4th Nov.
1999 at 2 P.M.
<flushright>
………………………………………………..CJI
…………………………………………………..J
(B.N. KIRPAL)
</flushright>New Delhi
October 15, 1999
<center>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 319 OF 1994
Narmada Bachao Andolan …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
ORDER
</center>
While I record my disapproval of the statements that are complained of,
I am 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
oustees.
I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance rendered to the Court by
the learned amicus curiae and by learned counsel for the parties.
The I.A. (no. 14) is, accordingly, disposed of.
<flushright>
…………………………..J
(S.P. Bharucha)
</flushright>New Delhi;
October I5, 1999
</excerpt>