Case Judgement Analysis: Re Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375

1) Citation of the Case:

• Case Name: In Re: Arundhati Roy vs. Supreme Court of India
• Case Number: Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 10 of 2001
• Date of Judgment: March 6, 2002
• Bench: Honorable Justices G.B. Pattanaik and R.P. Sethi

2) Facts of the Case:

This case revolves around a suo moto contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Arundhati Roy, a renowned author. The controversy arose in the context of a writ petition by the Narmada Bachao Andolan, a grassroots movement, concerning environmental issues and displacement due to the construction of a dam on the Narmada River. Following the Supreme Court's order permitting an increase in the dam's height, Arundhati Roy criticized the decision in an article. Subsequently, protests were held by Narmada Bachao Andolan and Arundhati Roy outside the Supreme Court premises.

Contempt proceedings were initiated based on a complaint, and while all respondents, including Roy, initially denied specific allegations, the proceedings were dropped. However, Roy's response to a show-cause notice included criticism of the Court for initiating contempt proceedings. She expressed concern over the Court's willingness to entertain contempt proceedings against those who criticized government policies and a recent Supreme Court judgment.

Based on these allegations, the Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Roy for imputing motives to the Court. Roy defended herself by asserting her right to express her opinions as a citizen and writer.

3) Issues Involved:

The key issue revolved around whether Roy's statements constituted contempt of court by imputing motives to the Court's actions and whether her criticism was justified under the law.

4) Arguments:

• Argument of the Appellant:

Arundhati Roy argued that her statements were made in the exercise of her right to freedom of speech and expression as a citizen and writer. She believed it was essential to express her opinions, even if critical of the Court.

• Argument of the Respondent:

The Supreme Court contended that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act, which aims to maintain the judiciary's dignity and integrity. The Court argued that Roy's statements constituted contempt by scandalizing the judiciary and questioned her good faith and the public interest in her comments.

5) Decision of the Court:

The Court found Arundhati Roy guilty of criminal contempt. It ruled that her statements did not constitute fair judicial criticism as they lacked good faith and were not in the public interest. The Court emphasized that the purpose of contempt proceedings was to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Roy was sentenced to one day of "symbolic" imprisonment and fined Rs. 2000, with the provision of three months' imprisonment if the fine was not paid.

6) Ratio of the Case:

The case establishes that freedom of speech and expression, while a fundamental right, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Criticism of the judiciary must be based on good faith and the public interest. Contempt proceedings aim to maintain public confidence in the judiciary, and allegations that impute motives to the Court can constitute contempt.

7) Comment on the Decision:

The Court's decision underscores the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the need to uphold the judiciary's reputation and authority. It highlights that criticism of the judiciary should be based on facts and must serve the public interest. Arundhati Roy's case serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries within which criticism of the court should be expressed