Holding

The Court held that the respondent's affidavit contained scandalising, contemptuous statements against the Supreme Court, constituting criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Summary

The Supreme Court, hearing a suo‑motu criminal contempt petition, examined statements made by writer Arundhati Roy in an affidavit that alleged the Court was acting with bias, silencing dissent and damaging its reputation. The Court held that such statements scandalised the authority of the Supreme Court and amounted to contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners' preliminary objection of bias and the claim that truth is a defence were rejected. The Court rejected the argument that fair criticism protected the statements, emphasizing that criticism must be in good faith and not undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Consequently, Roy was convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and a fine of Rs 2,000 (with a default term of three months). The petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the statements made by the respondent in her affidavit constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the Supreme Court.
Whether the Court can initiate suo‑motu contempt proceedings without any allegation of bias or motive on the part of the judges.
Whether the defence of truth or fair criticism under Article 19(1) and Sections 3‑7 of the Contempt Act is available in the present case.
The propriety of the respondent's preliminary objection seeking recusal of the bench on grounds of alleged bias.
Whether a non‑party writer can be held liable for contempt based on statements made in an affidavit filed in a contempt proceeding.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129, s. Article 19(1), s. Article 19(2), s. Article 215
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 14, s. 15, s. 2(c), s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 8
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 499

Subjects

contempt of courtscandalising the courtfreedom of speechArticle 19Article 129suo motu contemptcriminal contemptdefamationNarmada Bachao AndolanArundhati Royjudicial dignitySection 2(c)Section 12

Judgment

IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY-CONTEMNOR A

MARCH 6, 2002

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

B
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15.

Contempt-Law ofContempt-Enactment-Held, the purpose is to secure
public respect and confidence in judicial processes and to instil confidence of
the common man in the institution of Judiciary.
c
Contempt-Fair criticism-Distinction betwee~onduct of the Court-
Commenting of-Subject to good faith and in public interest which could be
checked from surrounding circumstances including the knowledge and intention
v,, 'e person.
D
Contempt-Suo-motu proceedings-Held, Contemptuous part of the
affidavit demonstrates the wrong done to public-It weakens the faith ofpublic
/
in general-ft scandalizes the authority of the Court~-Thus contempt
pro_ceedings could be initiated against the contemnor-On facts, contemnor
held guilty of contempt and sentenced
E
Conten1pt-Suo-motu proceedings-Motive-Held, when action is taken
at the instance of the Court, there is no nzotive and prejudice on the part of
the Judge in initiating the proceedings.

Criminal Contempt-Defamatory statements made in pleading/Petition/ F
Affidavit-Amounts to contempt unless it is shown that such statements are
made in good faith by the contemnor while discharging his public duties/
functions-Penal Code, 1860-Section 499.

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(/), 19(2), 129 & 215; G
Right offree expression-Limitation-Held, ifa person tries to undermine
the dignity of the Court, Court can invoke its power under Article 129 or 215
to initiate Contempt proceeding, if it is found that there is a direct attac/c on
the Institution itself
213 H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A . An Organisation called Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a Writ Petition
in this Court. The main issue in the petition was about the construction of
Sardar Sarova·r Reservoir l>a_m in Gujarat and its adverse- impact on
environment and displacement of people fronf their ancestral homes.
Respondent, a writer, who is n9t a _party to the said writ proceedings,
published an article on the plight of the residents of the area where proposal
B . for· construction of Dam had been initiated, in an English Magazine as well
as in a book written by her. Expressing its displeasure on the distorted writing,
this Court .obsen:ed that Judicial process and Judicial.institution cannot be
permitted to be. scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation of rig~ts
in such a blatant manner as had been done by the respondent. However, the
C Court did not initiate Contempt proceedings against the respondent in the
larger interest of the issues in the petition pending in the Court, viz., Oustee's
rehabilitation and resettlement. Subsequently, the Court pronounc;ed its
judgment.

Thereafter, Contempt Petition was filed by some of the Advocates
D alleging that respondent 'led a huge crowd and held a 'Dharna' in front of
this Court and shouted slogans ascribing lack of integrity and dishonesty to
this Court and when the petitioners protested they were attacked and assaulted
by the respondents. In the Contempt proceedings, notices were issued .
.Re_spondents filed affidavits admitting the holding of 'Dharna' outside the
E Supreme Court by the activists of 'Narmada Bachao Andolan' and oustees
aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court relating to building of the Dam on
the Narmada River, but Respondent No. 3 in lier affidavit made specific
contemptuous remarks against this Court. However, in view of denial of the
alleged involvement in shouting abusive slogans against the Court, the
Contempt proceeding was dropped. But in view of the contemptuous remarks
F made in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3~ suo-motu contempt
proceedi~g had been initiated against respondent No. 3. The Court_ found
Respondent No. 3, had prima facie committed contempt of this Court. A Notice
was issued to her to show cause -as to why Contempt proceedings should not
be initiated against her for the offending statements made in her ttffidavit.
G
Respondent-Contem~or raised preliminary objection that the Bench/
Judge which ordered to issue notice in Contempt Petition should not be a party
to the present proceeding; and that respoildent-contemnor apprehended bias
on the part of Judge/Bench to whom respondent claims to have allegedly
attributed motives; and that on the ground of a reference made to the
H Constitution Bench in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Remakrishan Hegde case
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY 215
which stated that truth can be pleaded as defence in Contempt Proceeding ·.A
and on the same issue decision of the Court in the matter of Perspective
:,
Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra has been referred to be
reconsidered, therefore, the present proceedings required to await the
Judgment of the Constitution Bench; and that no proceeding for Contempt
can be initiated against any person on the ground of his/her scandalising the B
Court.

Dismissing the objections and convicting the respondent-contemnor, the
Court

HELD : 1.1. 'Rule of µw• is the basic rule of governance of any civilised C
democratic polity. Constitutional scheme adopted by India is also based upon
the concept of Rule of Law. Everyone, whether individually or collectively, is
'
unquestionably under the supremacy of law, notwithstanding how powerful,.

rich and high he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule
of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the Judiciary. The
rule oflaw unfolds its contents and establishes its concept through the Courts.
For the judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to
the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the
Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. For restoring confidem;e
amongst the people for the independence of judiciary, its impartiality and the
... glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence
in the Courts of justice cannot, in any, way, be-allowed to be tarnished,
E

diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The only
weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the contempt
of Court in the armoury of judicial repository. 1220-C-D~E-FJ

In Re: Harijai Singh and Anr., 11996] 6 SCC 466, relied on. F

'Road to Justice ' written by Lord Denning, referred to. .
Frankforther, J in Pennekamp v. Florida, {1946), 90 Led 1295, referred
to.
G
1.2. The law of contempt has been enacted to ·secure public respect. and
confidence in the judici.al process. If s.uch confidence is shaken or broken, the
confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic
set up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous' for; · . ,
tl)e society itself. (222-B] H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A .2.1. In the instant case, notice was issued to the respondent not for having
attributed motives to a particular judge but for imputing motives to the Court
in general for allegedly harassing her as if the judiciary were carrying out
personal vendetta against her. The contemptuous part of affidavit of the
respondent, do~ not attribute any motive or make any allegation against any
judge. It has to be kept in mind that the present proceedings are
B distinguishable from the proceedings contemplated under Section 14 of the
Contempt of Courts Act (228-B-C]

2.2. When action is at the instance of the Court, there is no question of
any motive of and prejudice from any Judge. Accepting the plea raised by
C the respondent would amount to depriving all the Judges of the Court to her
the matter and thus frustrate the contempt proceedings, which cannot be the
mandate of law. The apprehension caused by the respondent is imaginary,
without basis and not bonafide. [228-H; 229-A)

3. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent on
D the basis of the offending and contemptuous part of the reply affidavit making
wild allegations against the Court and thereby scandlising its authority. There
is no point or fact in those proceedings which requires to be defended by
pleading the truth. (229-D)

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Rama Krishna Hegde, (2000) IO SCC 331,
E distinguished.

4. No wrong appears to have been done to any judge personally by filing
the offending affidavit but the contemptuous part of the affidavit demonstrates
the wrong done to the public. The respondent has tried to cast an injury to
the public by creating an impression in the mind of the people of this country
p regarding the integrity, ability and fairness f the institution of judiciary.
(231-C)

., Brahma Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [19531
SCR 1169, referred to.

G 5.1. The law of contempt itself envisages various exceptions as
incorporated in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Besides the defences envisaged under
the Act, the Court can, in appropriate cases, consider any other defence put
forth by the respondent which is not incompatible with the dignity of the Court
and the law of contempt (239-F)

H Sheela Borse v. Union of India and Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 226, relied on.

/
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY 217

5.2. A person claiming the benefit of second exception to Section 499 of A
the Indian Penal Code, is required to show that the opinion expressed by him
was in good faith which related to the conduct of a public servant in the
discharge or his public functions or respecting his character so far as his
character appears in that conduct. Under the law or contempt statements
made in pleadings, petitions and affidavits of the parties, in a number of cases, B
have been held defamatory statements amounting to offences under the section
unless it is shown that they fall within any of the exceptions. The statements
made in an affidavit filed in the Court amount to a criminal contempt.
[240-G)

Surender Nath v. ChiefJustice and Judges of the High Court, ILR 10 Cal, C
109 and Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, AIR, (1952) SC 149,
referred to.

Re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, New Delhi and Ors., [1955) 3 SCC 619, relied on.

- 5.3. Fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution of the
judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made in
good faith and in public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public
interest, Courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances inclu~ing the
D

person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which
the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All E
citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the Courts in
the name of fair criticism which, if not checked, would destroy the institution
itself. Litigant losing in the Court would be the first to impute motives to the
judges and the institution in the name of fair criticism which cannot be allowed
for preserving the public faith in a important pillar or democratic set up, i.e.,
judiciary. In the instant case the respondent has not claimed to possess any F
special knowledge of law and the working of the institution of judiciary and
has only claimed herself to be a writer of repute. It is also not denied that the
respondent was directly or indirectly associated with the Narmada Bachao
Andolan and was, therefore, interested in the result of the litigation. She has
not claimed to have made any study regarding the working of this Court or G
judiciary in the country and claims to have made the offending imputations
in her proclaimed right of freedom of speech and expression as a writer.
[245-B-C]

P.N Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors.. (1988] 3 SCC 167, distinguished.

Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon 'ble the ChiefJustice of India, [1996) 5 SCC 216, H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A referred to.

E.M Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, [1970) 2 SCC
325, referred to.

5.4. The Constitution of India has guaranteed freedom of speech and
B expression to every citizen as a fundamental right While guaranteeing such
freedom, it has also provided under Article 129 that 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. Similar power has been conferred
on the High Courts of the States under Article 215. Under the Constitution,
there is no separate guarantee of the freedom of the press and it is the same
C 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). If a citizen,
therefore, in the garb of exercising right of free expression under Article 19(1 ),
D tries to scandalise the Court or undermines the dignity of the Court, then the
Court would be entitled to exercise power under Article 129 or Article 215,
as the case may be. In relation to a pending proceeding before the Court, while
showing cause to the notices issued, when it is stated that the Court displays
a dis(urbing willingness to issue notice on an absurd despicable, entirely
-
on.substantiated petition, it amounts to a destructive attack on the reputation
E and the credibility of the Institution and it undermines the public confidence .
in the judiciary as a whole and by no stretch of imagination, can be held to
be a fair criticism of the Court's proceeding. When a scurrilous attack is made
in relation to a pending proceeding and the notice states that the issuance of
notice to show cause was intended to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to
harass and intimidate those who disagree with it, is a direct attack.on the
F Institution itself, rather the conduct of an individual Judge. The meaning of
the expression used cannot come within the extended concept of fair criticism
or expression of opinion, particularly to the case of the contemnor in the
present case, who on her own right is an acclaimed writer in English.
[246-E-F-G-H; 247-A-B]
G
6.1. One has t(l find out whether there can be a balancing between the
two public i~tere~ts, the freedom of expression and the1ttgnity of the Court.
The observations of this Court in the earlier contempt case against the present
contemnor is also relevant. In the offending portion of her affidavit, the
respondent has accused the Court of proceeding with absurd, despicable and
H entirely unsubstariiated petition which, according to her, amounted to the
IN RE : ARUNDHATI ROY 219

Court displaying a disturbing willingness to issue notice. She has further A
attributed motives to the Court of silencing criticism and muzzling dissent
by harassing and intimidating those who disagree with it. Her contempt for
the Court is evident from the assertion "by entertaining a petition based on
an FIR that even a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme
Court is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm". In the B
affidavit filed in these proceedings, the respondent has reiterated what she
has stated in her earlier affidavit and has not shown any repentance. She
wanted to become a champion to the cause of the writers by asserting that
persons like her can allege anything they desire and accuse any person or
Institution without any circumspection, limitation or restraint. Such an
attitude shows her persistent and consistent attempt to malign the Institution C
of the judiciary found to be most important pillar in the Indian democratic
set up. (247-D-H; 248-A-B-Cl

Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'b/e the ChiefJustice of India., (1996] 5 SCC 216,
relied on.

Andre Paul v. Attorney General., (1936) AC 322, referred to.
D

6.2. The well-known proposition of law is that it punishes the archer as
soon as the arrow is shot-no matter if it misses to hit the target. The respondent
is proved to have shot the arrow, intended to damage the Institution of the
judiciary and thereby weaken the faith of the public in general aud if such E
an attempt is not prevented, disastrous consequences are likely to follow
resulting in the destruction of rule of law the expected norm of any civilised
society. [248-D!

6.3. On the basis of the record, the position of law and findings on
various pleas raised and the conduct of the respondent, the respondent has F
committed criminal contempt of this Court by scandalising 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. The
ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to symbolic imprisonment of
simple imprisonment for one day besides paying a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in
default of payment of fine, to under go imprisonment for three months. G
[248-E-G]

In Re: S. Mulgaokar. [1918] 3 SCC 339, relied on.

Shri Baradakanta Mishra v, The Registrar ofOrissa High Court and Anr.,
[197411 sec 374, referred to. H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.)
No. IO of 2001.

Shanti Bhushan, Prashant B!.11shan, Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Narender Verma,
Vishal Gupta, Sanjay Pathak and Anil Mittal for the Contemner.

B Altaf, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay R. Hegde and P. Parmeswaran
for Union of India

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. 'Rule of Law' is the basic rule of governance of any civilised
C democratic polity. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of
Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone,
whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy
of law, Whoever the· person may be, however high he or she is, no-one is
above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may ·be.
For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned
D the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courts
.that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the . ..._
judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit
with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts
have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century
E of independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and
being endangered from with.in and without. The need of the time is of restoring .
confidence amongst the people for the independence of judiciary. Its
,impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and
strengthened. The confidence in the courts of justice, which the people possess,
cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by
F contumacious behaviour of any person. The only weapon of protecting itself
from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left
in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any
neck howsoever high or far away it may be. In In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
(the alleged contemner), AIR( 1995) SC 2348 this Court reiterated the position
G of law relating to the powers of contempt and opined that the judiciary is 11:ot
only the guardian of the rule of law and third pillar but in fact the central
pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duti~s and
functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly
entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected
and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very comer-stone of our constitutional
H scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the
IN RE :ARUNDHATIROY [SETHl,J.] 221

civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted A
with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether
inside or outside the courts, which tend to undennine the authority of law and
bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the court exercises
this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the
individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the
majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the B
judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver
fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts
which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court
by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets
eroded. C
No person can flout the mandate of law of respecting the courts for
establishment of rule of law under the cloak of freedoms of speech and
expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Such a freedom is subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed by any law. Where a provision, in the law,
relating to contempt imposes reasonable restrictions, no citizen can take the D
liberty of scandalising the authority of the institution of judiciary. freedom
qf speech and expression, so far as they do not contravene the statutory limits
as contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, are to prevail without any
' hindrance. However, it must be n nembered that the maintenance of dignity
of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set E
up and any criticism of the judicial institution couched in language that
apparently appears to be mere criticism but ultimately results in undennining
the dignity of the courts cannot be pennitted when found having crossed the
limits and has to be punished. This Court in In Re: Harijai Singh and Anr.
[1996] 6 sec 466 has pointed out that a free and healthy Press is indispensable
to the function of a true democracy but, at the same time, cautioned that the F
freedom of Press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in
all circumstances. Lord Dening in his Book "Road to Justice" observed that
Press is the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and
above board but the watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be
punished for misbehaviour. Frankfarther, J in Pennekamp v. Florida, ( 1946) G
90 Led 1295 at p. 1313] observed:

"If men, including Judges and journalists were angels, there would be
no problems of contempt of Court. Angelic Judges would be
undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would
not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a H I
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A means of safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community
. as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege
accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a
safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the function which they
exercise."

B The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public ~espect and
confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the
confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic
set up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous
for the society itself.

C In this backdrop of the mandate of rule of law, we are called upon to
deal with the case of the respondent against whom suo motu contempt
proceedings have been initiated by this Court. The re~pondent, who is stated
to be an author of name and fame, has landed herself in the dock of the court,
apparently by drifting away from the path on which she was traversing by
D contributing to the art and literature. During whole of the proceeding she has
not shown any repentance or remorse and persistently and cons_istently tried
to justify her action_ which, prima facie, was found to be contemptuous. To
frustrate the present proceedings, the respo~dent has resorted to all legal
tactics and pretences. In view of this we have no option but to deal with the
case on its merits, not being influenced by any other factor or circumstance
E except our commitment to protect the dignity and respect of the institution
of judiciary so that the c.onfidence of the common man is not shaken in the
institution.

The facts of the case, which are not seriously dispu!ed, are that an
organisation, namely, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition under Article
F 32 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 319 of 1994 in this
Court. The petitioner was a movement or andolan, whose leaders and members
were concerned about the alleged adverse environmental impact of the
construction of the sardar Sarovar Reservoir Dam in Gujarat and the far-
reaching and tragic consequences of the displacement of hundreds of thousands
G of people from their ancestral homes t~at would result from the submerging
of vast extents of land, to make up the reservoir. During the pendency of the
writ petition this Court passed various orders. By one of the orders, the Court
·permitted to increase the ·height of the dam to RL 85 meters which was
resented to and protested by the writ petitioners and others including the
respondent herein. The respondent Arundhati Roy, who is not a party to the
H writ proceedings, published an article entitled "The Greater Common Good"
IN RE : ARUNDHA Tl ROY [SETHI, I.] 223

·which was published in Outlook Magazine and in some portion of a book A
written by her. Two judges of this Court, forming the three-judge Bench felt
that the comments made by her were, prima facie, a misrepresentation of the
proceedings of the court. It was observed that judicial process and institution
cannot be permitted to be scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation
in such a biatant manner, as it had been done by her. The action of the B
respondent had caused the court much anguish and when the court expressed
its displeasure on the action of the respondent in making distorted writing or
manner in which leaders of the petitioner Ms. Meda Patkar and one
Dharmadikhari despite giving assurance to the court acted in breach of the
injunction, the Court observed:

"We are unhappy at the way the leaders of NBA and Ms. Arundhati
c
Roy have attempted to undermine the dignity of the CQurt. We
expected better behaviour from them."

Showing its magnanimity, the Court declared:

"After giving this matter our thoughtful consideration and keeping in D
view the importance of the issue of resettlement and rehabilitation of
_J the PAFs, which we have been monitoring for the last five years, we
are not inclined to initiate 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 E
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."
F
The third learned Judge also recorded his disapproval of the statement
made by the respondent herein and others and felt that as 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, no action in
contempt be taken against them. . G
However, after the judgment was pronounced in IA No. 14 of 1999 on
15th October, 1999 reported at [1999] 8 sec 308, an incident is stated to
have taken place on 30th December, 2000 regarding which Contempt Petition
No.2 of 200 I was filed by J.R. Parashar, Advocate and others. According to
the appellgations made in that petition, the respondents named therein, led a H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A huge crowd and held a Dhama in front of this Court and shouted abusive
slogans against the court including slogans ascribing lack of integrity and
dishonesty to this institution. It was alleged that when the petitioners therein
protested, they were attacked and assaulted by the respondents. In the evening
on the same day, the respondents are stated to have attacked, abused and
B assaulted the petitioners. A complaint was stated to have been lodged with
the Tilak Marg Police Station on the next day. In the aforesaid contempt
proceeding notices were issued to the respondents in response to which they
filed separate affidavits. All the three respondents therein admitted that there
was a Dha~a outside the gates of this Court on 30th December, 2000 which
was organised by Narmada Bachao Andolan and the gathered crowd were ~
C persons who lived in the Narmada Valley and were aggrieved by the majority
judgment of this Court relating to the building of the dam on the Narmada
River. In her affidavit the respondent, amongst other averments, had stated:

"On the grounds that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy, the
Chief Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the
D judicial enquiry into the Tehelka scandal, even though it involves
matters of national security and corruption in the highest •ilaces.

Yet when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated
petition in which all the three respondents happen to be people who
have publicly -though in markedly different ways - questioned the
E policies of the government and severely criticized a recent judgment
of the Supreme Court, the Court displays a di:;turbing willingness to
issue notice.

It indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to silence
F criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who
disagree with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even
a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court
is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm. "

(Emphasis Supplied )
G
The assertions in the aforesaid contempt petition attributed that the
contemnors shouted abusive slogans against the court including slogans
ascribing lack of integrity and dishonesty to the institution undoubtedly made
the action of the contemnor gross contemptuous and as such the court had
initiated the contempt proceedings by issuing notice. But in view of the
H denial of the alleged contemnors to the effect that they had never shouted
IN RE : ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.] 225

such slogans and used such abusive words as stated in the contempt petition, A
instead of holding an inquiry and permitting the parties to lead evidence in
respect of their respective stand, to find out which version is correct, the
court thought it fit not to adopt that course and decided to drop the proceedings.
But in the very show cause that had been filed by the respondent No. 3, Smt.
Arundhati Roy, apart from denying that she had not used any such words as
ascribed to her, she had stated in three paragraphs, as quoted earlier which B
were absolutely not necessary, after denying that she had never uttered the
words ascribed to her and those paragraphs having been found prima-facie
contemptuous, the suo-motu proceedings had been initiated and notice had
been issued. However, the Court felt that respondent No. 3 therein (Arundhati
Roy) was found to have, prima facie, committed contempt as she had imputed C
motives to specific courts for entertaining litigation and passing orders against
her. She had accused courts of harassing her as if the judiciary were carrying
out a personal vendetta against her. She had brought in matters which were
not only not pertinent to the issues to be decided but has drawn uninformed
comparisons to make statements about this Court which do not appear to be
protected by law relating to fair criticism. It was stated by her in the court D
that she stood by the comments made by her even if the same are
_1
contumacious. For the reason recorded therein, the Court issued notice in-the
prescribed form to the respondent herein asking her to show cause as to why
she should not be proceeded against for contempt for the statements in the
offending three paragraphs of her affidavit, reproduced hereinearlier. E

In her reply affidavit, the respondent has again reiterated what she had
stated in her earlier affidavit. It is contended that as a consequence of the
Supreme Court judgment the people in the Narmada Valley are likely to lose
their homes, their livelihood and their histories and when they came calling
on the Supreme Court, they were accused of lowering the dignity of the court F
which, according to her is a suggestion that the dig(lity of the court and the
dignity of the Indian citizens are incompatible, oppositional, adversarial things.
She stated:

"I believe that the people of the Narmada valley have the constitutional G
right to peacefully protest against what they consider an unjust and
unfair judgment. As for myself, I have every right to participate in
any peaceful protest meeting that I choose to. Even outside the gates
of the Supreme Court. As a writer I am fully entitled to put forward
my views, my reasons and arguments for why I believe that the
judgment in the Sardar Sarovar case is flawed and unjust and violates H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A the human rights of Indian citizens. I have the right to use all my
skills and abilities such as they are, and all the facts and figures at my
,_ ' '
disposal, to persuade people to my point of view.;'

She also stated that she has written and published several essays and
articles on Narmada issue and the Supreme Court judgment. None of them
B was intended to show contempt to the court. She justified her right to disagree
with the court's view on the subject and to express her disagreement in.any
publication or forum. In her belief the big dams are economically unviable,
ecologically destructive and deeply undemocratic. In her affidavit she has
further stated:
~
c "But whoever they are, and whatever their motives, for the petitioners
to attempt to misuse the Contempt of Court Act and the good offices
of the Supreme Court to stifle criticism and stamp out dissent, strikes
at the very roots of the notion of democracy.

In recent months this Court has issued judgments on several major
D
public issues. For instance, the closure of polluting industries in Delhi,
the conversion of public transport buses from diesel to CNG, and the
judgment permitting the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam_ to '-- ~-

proceed. All of these have had far-reaching and often unanticipated
impacts. They have materially affected, for better or for worse, the_
E lives and livelihoods of millions of Indian citizens. Whatever the
justice or injustice of these judgments, whatever their finer legal points,
for the court to become intolerant of criticism or expressions of dissent
would mark the beginning of the end of democracy.
~
An 'activist' judiciary, that intervenes in public matters to provide a
F corrective to a corrupt, dysfunctional executive, surely has to be more,
not less accountable. To a society that is already convulsed by political
bankruptcy, economic distress and religious and cultural intolerance,
any form of judicial intolerance will come as a crippling blow. If the
judiciary removes itself from public scrutiny and accountability, and
G severs its links with the society that it was set up to serve in the first
place, it would mean that yet another pillar of Indian democracy will
crumble. A judicial dictatorship is a fearsome a prospect as a military
dictatorship or any other form of totalitarian rule.

The Tehelka tapes broadcast recently on a national television network
H show the repulsive sight of Presidents of the Bhartiya Janata Party
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.) 227
and the Samata Party (both part of the ruling coalition) accepting A
bribes from spurious arms dealers, Though this ought to have been
considered prima facie evidence of corruption, yet the Delhi High
Court declined to entertain a petition seeking an enquiry into the
defence deals that were referred to in the tapes. The bench took
strong exception to the petitioner approaching the court without
substantial evidence and even warned the petitioner's counsel that if B
he failed to substantiate its allegations, the court would impose costs
on the petitioner.

On the grounds that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy, the
Chief Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the C
judicial enquiry into the Tehelka scandal, even though it involves
matters of national security and corruption in the highest places.

Yet when it cornes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated
petition in which all the three respondents happen to be people who

- have publicly -though in markedly different ways - questioned the
policies of the government and severely criticized a recent judgment
of the Supreme Court, the Court displays a disturbing willingness to
issue notice.
D

It indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to silence
criticism and muzzle dissent. to harass and intimidate those who E
disagree with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even
a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court
is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm.

In conclusion, I wish to reaffirm that as a writer I have right to state
my opinions and beliefs. As a free citizen of India I have the right to F
be part of any peaceful dharna, demonstration or protest march. I
have the right to criticize any judgment of any court that I believe to
be unjust. I have the right to make common cause with those I agree
with. I hope that each time I exercise these rights I will not dragged
to court on false charges and forced to explain my actions."
G
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length
and perused the relevant record.

Before dealing with the main case we propose to dispose of the
preliminary objection raised by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate who
has appeared for the respondent-contemner. Without filing a formal application H
•

•

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the Hon'ble Judges who
issued notice in Criminal Petition No.2 of 2001 should not be a party to the
present proceeding and the case be transferred to some other Bench, allegedly
on the ground that the respondent-contemner had reasonable apprehension of
bias on the part of the said Judges to whom she claims to have allegedly
attributed motives. Such a prayer was made after the commencement of the
B proceedings which, we feel, was not bonafide. The apprehension expressed
by the respondent much less being reasonable in fact has no basis. It has to
be kept in mind that notice was issued to the respondent not for having
attributed motives to a particular Judge but for imputing motives to the Court
in general for allegedly harassing her as if the judiciary were carrying out
C personal vendetta against her. The contemptuous part of her affidavit, noticed
hereinbefore, does not attribute any motive or make any allegation against
any judge. It has to be kept in mind that the present proceedings are
distinguishable from the proceedir1gs contemplated under Section 14 ·Of the
Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Initially on the
petition of one J.R. Parashar, notice had been issued by a Bench cqnstituting
D ofG.B. Patnaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ. When the contemners appeared in that .......
case, and filed show cause, no prayer had been made seeking recusal of any
judge. Finally that application registered as Contempt Petition No. 2/200 l
was heard by a Bench of G.B. Patnaik and Ruma Pal, JJ. and disposed of by
the judgment ·dated 28th August, 2001 discharging the contemners and
E initiating a suo motu proceedings because of disparaging comments in the
show cause filed by Arundhati Roy. In pursuance to such notice, the proceeding
was registered as Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 10/2001. In the
proceeding contemner appeared on 29. l 0.200 l and filed her show cause. No
prayer for recusal had been made on that day. When the case was taken up
for hearing on 15.1.2002, prayer for recusal had been made, which was not
F allowed. The narration of facts indicate only a frustration on the part of the
contemner and such belated prayer for bench haunting is to be curbed as it
would be against the administration of justice.

In the instant case cognizance of tht criminal contempt against the
G respondent has been taken by the COURT, suo motu under Section 15 of the
Act. Whereas sub-section (2) of Section 14 permits a person charged with the
contempt to have charge against him tried by some Judge other than the
judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have
been committed and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so. No
such provision is made under Section 15 of the Act. Obviously for the reason
H that when action is at the instance of the COURT, there is no question of any
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.] 229
..-,. motive of and prejudice from any Judge. Accepting the plea raised by the A
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. The apprehension caused by the respondent is imaginary,
without basis and not bonafide. The oral prayer made for one of us not to be
a member of the Bench, hearing the matter, is rejected.
B
Mr. Shanti Bhushan made another endeavour to defer the proceeding,
allegedly on the ground of reference made to the Constitution Bench vide an
order in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Rama Krishna Hegde, [2000] JO SCC
331). It is contended that as truth can be pleaded as a defence in contempt
proceedings and that the decision of this Court in Perspective Publications C
(P) Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, [1969] 2 SCR 779 has been referred to be
reconsidered, the present proceedings are required to await the judgment of
the Constitution Bench. Such a submission is without any substance inasmuch
as the qnestion of truth being pleaded as defence, in the present case, does
not arise. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent
on the basis of the offending and contemptuous part of the reply 'affidavit D
making wild allegations against the court and thereby scandalised its authority.
There is no point or fact in those proceedings which requires to be defended
by pleading the truth.

After referring to various judgments of this Court and courts of other E
countries, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has asserted that no
proceedings for contempt can be initiated against any person on the ground
of his/ her allegedly scandalising the court. Much reliance is placed upon the
judgment in Brahma Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. The State o[Uttar Pradesh
[1953] SCR 1169. In that case contempt proceedings were initiated against
the members of the Executive Committee of the District Bar Association at F
Muzaffamagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh because of certain resolutions
passed by the Committee in which it was alleged that the two Judicial Officers
were thoroughly incompetent in law, did not inspire confidence in their judicial
work, were given to stating wrong facts when passing orders and were over-
bearing and discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike. A number G
of other defects were also catalogued in the resolution passed by the
Association. The High Court directed the issue of notice to the members of
the Committee of the Bar Association to show cause why they should not be
dealt with for contempt of court in respect of certain portion of the resolution
which was set out in the notice. In answer to those notices, the alleged
contemners appeared and filed affidavits. The Bench, hearing the case, came H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A to tlie conclusion that with the exception of the two alleged contemners, who
were not the members of the Executive Committee at the relevant date, the ,'r--
remaining six were guilty of contempt of court. It was, however, held that the
aforesaid six members of the Bar were not actuated by any personal or
improper motive and the statement made on their behalf was that their oLject
B was not intended to interfere with but to improve the administration of justice.
Nevertheless it was observed that the tenns used in the resolution were little
removed from personal abuse and whatever might have been the motive, they
were guilty of contempt. In concluding portion of the judgment it was stated:

"We think that the opposite parties acted under a misapprehension as
to the position, but they have expressed their regrets and tendered an
c unqualified apology. In the circumstances, we accept their apology,
but we direct that they pay the costs of the Government Advocate
which we assess at Rs. 300."

The High Court in its judgment had concluded that the allegations made
D against the judicial officers come within the category of contempt which is
comm1tted by "scandalising the court". The learned judges observed on the
authority of the pronouncement of Lord Russel in Reg. v. Gray, [ 1900) 2
Q.B. 36 that this class of contempt is subject to one important qualification.
In the opinion of the judges of the High Court, the complaint lodged by the
contemners exceeded the bounds of fair and legitimate criticism. This Court ....
E referred to various judgments of English Courts and concluded:

"The position therefore is that a defamatory attack on a judge may be
a libel so far as the judge is concerned and it would be open to him
to proceed against the libellor in a proper action if he so chooses. If,
however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to
F interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of
law by such court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is
a wrong done to the judge personally while the other is a wrong done
to the public. It will be injury to the public if it tends to create an
apprehension in rhe minds ofthe people regarding the integrity, abi/itv
or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants
G
from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of
justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the
judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well
established that it is not necessary to prove affinnatively that there
has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by
H reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or
IN RE: ARUNDHA Tl ROY [SETHI, J.] 231

tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law." A
(Emphasis Supplied)

We cannot agree with the submission made on behalf.of the learned counsel
for the respondent that in the light of Brahma Prakash Sharma 's case no
contempt proceedings can be initiated against the respondent for scandalising B
the court. No wrong appears to have been done to any judge personally by
filing the offending affidavit but the contemptuous part of the affidavit
demonstrates the wrong done to the public. The respondent has tried to cast
an injury to the public by creating an impression in the mind of the people
of this backward country regarding the integrity, ability and fairness of the
institution of judiciary. C

Similarly reliance of Shri Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate on Shri
Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar ofOrissa High Court and Anr., [1974]
1 SCC 374 is of no great help to his client. After referring to the definition
of criminal contempt in Section 2(c) of the Act, the court found that the D
terminology used in the definition is borrowed from the English Law of
contempt and embodies certain concepts which are familiar to that law which,
by and large, was applied in India. The expressions "scandalize", "lowering
the authority of the court", "inteference", "obstruction" and "administration
of justice" have all gone into the legal currency of our sub-continent and E
have to be understood in the sense in which they have been so far understood
by our courts with the aid of English Law, where necessary. Sub-clause(i) of
the definition was held to embody the concept of scandalisation, as discussed
by Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition in Volume 8, page 7 at para 9.
Action of scandalising the authority of the court has been regarded as an
"obstruction" of public justice whereby the authority of the court is F
undermined. All the three clauses of the definition were held to justify the
contempt in terms of obstruction of or interference with the administration of
justice. It was declared that the Act accepts what was laid down by the Privy
Council and other English authorities that proceedings in contempt are always
with reference to the administration of justice. The scandalisation within the
meaning of sub-section (i) must be in respect of the court or the judge with G
reference to administration of justice. This Court concluded that the courts of
justice are, by their constitution, entrusted with functions directly connected
with the administration of justice, and it is the expectation and confidence of
all those who have or likely to have business therein that the court perform
., all their functions on a high level ofrectitude without fear or favour, affection H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A or ill-will. It is this traditional confidence in courts of justice that the justice
will be administered to the people which is sought to be protected by
proceedings in contempt. The object obviously is not to vindicate the judge
personally but to protect the public against any undermining of their
accustomed confidence in the institution of the judiciary. Scandalisation of
the court was held to be a species of contempt which may take several fonns.
B Krishna Iyer, J. while concurring with the main judgment authored by Palekar,
J. observed that the dilemma of the law of contempt arises because of the
constitutional need to balance two great but occasionally conflicting principles
- freedom of expression and fair and fearless justice. After referring to the
judgments of English, American and Canadian Courts, he observed:
c
"Before stating the principles of law bearing on the facets of contempt
of court raised in this case we would like to underscore the need to
draw the lines clear enough to create confidence in the people that
this ancient and inherent power, intended to preserve the faith of the
public in public justice, will not be so used as to provoke public
D hostility as overtook the Star Chamber. A vague and wandering
jurisdiction with uncertain frontiers, a sensitive and suspect power to
punish vested in the prosecutor, a law which makes it a crime to
public regardl_ess of truth and public good and pennits a process of
brevi manu conviction, may unwittingly trench upon civil liberties
E and so the special jurisdiction and jurisprudence bearing on contempt
power must be delineated with deliberation and operated with serious
circumspection by the higher judicial echelons. So it is that as the
palladium of our freedoms, the Supreme Court and the High Courts,
must vigilantly protect free speech even against judicial umbrage - a
delicate but sacred duty whose discharge demands tolerance and
F detachment of a high order."

According to him the considerations, as noticed in the judgment, led \O the
enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which makes some restri~tive
departures from the traditional law and implies some wholesome principles
G which serve as unspoken guidelines in this branch of law. Section 2(c)
emphasizes to the interference with the courts of justice or obstruction of the
administration of justice or sacandalising or lowering the authority of the
court - not the judge. Nccording to him, "The unique power to punish for
contempt of itself inheres in a court qua court, in its essential role of dispenser
of public justice. After referring to host of judicial pronouncements, Krishna
H Iyer, J., concluded: ·
IN RE: ARUNDHA Tl ROY [SETHI, J.] 233

"We may now sum up. Judges and Courts have diverse duties. But A
functionally, historically and jurisprudentially, the value which is dear
to the community and the function which deserves to be cordoned off
from public molestation, is judicial. Vicious criticism of personal and
administrative acts of Judges may indirectly mar their image and
weaken the confidence of the public in the judiciary but the counter- B
vailing good, not merely of free speech but also of greater faith
generated by exposure to the actinic light of bona fide, even if
marginally over-zealous, criticism cannot be overlooked. Justice is so
cloistered virtue."

The Court in that case did not spare even a judicial officer and convicted him C
of the offence by awarding the punishment of paying a fine of Rs. 1000 or
in default suffer imprisonment for three months.

Jn Re: S. Mulgaokar, [1978] 3 SCC 339 Beg, CJ observed that the
judiciary is not immune from criticism but when that criticism is based on
obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which is D
designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence
in it, it cannot be ignored. He further declared" :

"! do not think that we should abstain from using this weapon even
when its use is needed to correct standards of behaviour in a grossly
and repeatedly erring quarter." E
In that case when the matter was taken up in the court, the contempt
proceedings were dropped without calling upon the counsel appearing for the
respondent in response to the notice. The action had been initiated on some
news items published in the Indian Express which was termed to be milder
publication. The erring sentence in the publication was , "So adverse has F
been the criticism that the Supreme Court Judges, some of whom had prepared
the draft code, have disowned it". It was found that the judges of court were
not even aware of the contents of the letter before it was sent by the Chief
Justice of India to the Chief Justices of various High Courts suggesting, inter
alia, that Chief Justices could meet and draft a cod.e of ethics themselves or G
' _,., through a Committee of Chief Justices so as to prevent possible lapses from
the path of rectitude and propriety on the part of Judges. The error was
pointed out to the Editor of the Indian Express in a letter sent by the Registrar
of this Court. In reply, the Registrar received a letter from the Editor showing
that the contents of the letter, which were confidential, were known to the
Editor. Instead of publishing any correction of the mis-statement about the H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A conduct of Judges of this Court, the Editor offered to publish the whole
material in his possession, as though there was an issue to be tried between
the Editor of the newspaper and this Court and the readers were there to try
it and decide it. It was pointed out that the writer of an article of a responsible
newspaper on legal matters is expected to know that there is no constitutional
B safeguard or provision relating to the independence of the judiciary which
could possibly prevent Judges themselves meeting to formulate a code of ·
judicial ethics or to constitute a committee to formulate a code of judicial
ethics and etiquette. The article proceeded on the assumption that there was
already a formulated code of ethics sent to the Chief Justice which in fact
was not correct. The counsel appearing for the alleged contemner to whom
C the notice was issued tried to convince the court that there was no intention
on the part of the writer of the article or the Editor to injure the dignity or
position of the court but the intention was only to direct public attention to
matters of extreme importance to the nation. The Chief Justice made his
statement clear and removed the mis-apprehensions, if there were really and
in discretion dropped the proceedings. Nowhere in the judgment the court
D opined that publication of offending material against the court did not amount
to scandalising the court. Krishna Iyer, J. while concurring observed:

"The contempt power, though jurisdictionally large, is discretionary
in its unsheathed exercise. Every commission of contempt need not
erupt in indignant committal or demand punishment, because Judges
E
are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom goes into
action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is
personal protection - for a wide discretion, range of circumspection
and rainbow of public considerations beningnantly guide that power.
Justice if not hubris; power is not petulance and prudence is not.
F pusillanimity, especially when Judges are themselves prospectors and
mercy is a mark of strength, not whimper of weakness. Christ and
.Gandhi shall not be lost on the Judges at a critical time when courts
are on trial and the people ("We, the People of India") pronounce the
final verdict on all natioIJal institutions. Such was the sublime
perspective, not plural little factors, that prompted me to nip in the
G
bud the proceeding started for serving a larger cause of public justice
than punitive action against a publisher, even assuming (without
admitting) he was guilty. The preliminary proceeding has been buried
publicly; let it lie in peace. Many values like free press, fair trial,
judicial fearlessness and community confidence must generously enter
H the verdict, the benefit of doubt, without absolutist insistence, being
IN RE : ARUNDHA TI ROY [SETHI, J.] 235
extended to the defendants. Such are the dynamics of power in this A .
special jurisdiction. These diverse indicators, carefully considered,
have persuaded me to go no further, by a unilateral decision of the
Bench. This closure has two consequences. It puts the lid on the
proceedings without pronouncing on the guilt or otherwise of the
opposite parties. In a quasi-criminal action, a presumption of innocence B
operates. Secondly, whatever belated reasons we may give for our
action, we must not proceed to substantiate the accusation, if any. To
condemn unheard is not fair play. Bodyline bowling, perhaps, is not
cricket. So my reason do not reflect on the merits of the charge."

He further observed that contempt power is a wise economy to use by the C
Court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The court will act with seriousness
and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack
on the Judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial
process. The court should harmonise the constitutional values of free criticism
and the need for a fearless curial process and its presiding functionary, the
Judge. A happy balance has to be struck, the benefit of the doubt being given D
generously against the Judge, slurring over marginal deviations but severely
proving the supremacy of the law over pugnacious, vicious, unrepentant and
malignant contemners, be they the powerful press, gang-up of vested interests,
veteran columnists of olympian establishmentarians. After referring to certain
principles to be kept in mind while dealing with the contempt proceedings E
and referring to host of judgments of the foreign and this Court, he concluded.

"The Court is not an inert abstraction; it is people in judicial power.
And when drawing up standards for press freedom and restraint, as
an 'interface' with an unafraid court, we must not forget that in our
constitutional scheme the most fundamental of all freedoms is the F
free quest for justice by the small man. "When beggars die, there are
comets seen" and "when the bull elephants fight, the grass is trampled".
The contempt sanction, once frozen by the high and mighty press
campaign, the sufferer, in the long run, is the small Indian who seeks
social transformation through a fearless judicial process. Social justice G
is at stake if foul press unlimited were to reign. As Justice Frankfurther
stated, may be "Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled
to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or
institutions" (a question I desist from deciding here), but when
comment darkness into coercive imputation or calculated falsehood,
threats to impartial adjudication subtly creeps. Not because Judges H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A lack firmness nor that the dignity of the Bench demands enhanced
respect by enforced silence, as Justice Black observed in the Los
Angeles Times case [314 US 263 et al] but because the course of
justice may be distorted by hostile attribution."

In Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon 'hie the Chief Justice of India, [1996) 5 SCC
B 216 this Court held that if maintenance of democracy is the foundation of
free speech, society equally is entitled to regulate freedom of speech or
expression by democratic action. Nobody has a right to denigrate others right
of person and reputation. Bonafide criticism of any system or institution
including the judiciary cannot be objected to as healthy and constructive
C criticism are tools to augment forensic tools for improving its function.

Relying upon some judgments of foreign courts and the cherished wishes
expressed or observations made by the Judges of this country it cannot be
held as law that in view of the constitutional protection of freedom of speech
and expression no-one can be proceeded with for the contempt of court on
D the allegation of scandalising or intending to scandalise the authority of any
Court. The Act is for more comprehensive legislation which lays down the
law in respect of several matters which hitherto had been the subject of
judicial exposition. The legislature appears to have kept in mind to bring the
law on the subject into line with modem trends of thinking in other countries
without ignoring the ground realities and prevalent socio-economic system in
E India, the vast majority of whose people are poor, ignorant, uneducated,
easily liable to be misled, but who acknowledgly have the tremendous faith
in the Dispensers of Justice. The Act, which was enacted in the year 1971,
much after the adoption of the Constitution by the\People of India, defined
criminal contempt under Section 2(c) to mean:

F "Criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken
or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of
any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) sc~ndalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of, any court, or
G
(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."
H This Court has occasion to deal with the constitutional validity of the
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.] 237
Act and came to the conclusion that the same was intra vires. If the A
constitutional validity of criminal contempt withstood the test on the touchstone
of constitutionality in the light of the fundamental rights, it is too late to
argue at this stage that no contempt proceeding can be initiated against a
person on the ground of scandalising the authority of the court.

Dealing with the meaning of the word "scandalising", this Court in B
D.C. Saxena's case (supra) held that it is an expression of scurrilous attack
on the majesty of justice which is calculated to undermine the authority of
the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. The malicious
or slanderous publication inculcates in the mind of the people a general
disaffection and dissatisfaction on the judicial determination and indisposes C
· in their mind to obey them. If the people's allegiance to the law is so
fundamentally shaken it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of
justice calling for urgent action. Dealing with Section 2(c) of the Act and
defining the limits of scandalising the court, it was held:

"Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of D
judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in
' connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel
or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a
judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment
to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of E
a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy,
undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore,
be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality,
corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the
court and would be contempt of the court. Even imputation of lack F
of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official
duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of
lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice.
When the contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes
with the performance of duties of judge's office or judicial process G
or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency
bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act,
therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any
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 scandalises or tends to scandalise, or H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A lowers or tends to lower the authority or any court; or prejudices, or
interferes or tends co interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct,
the administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal
contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or tendency
to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or
tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or
B tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a
criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may
lead to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal
contempt. Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or
produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or
c tends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of
the court."

Jn E.M Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, [1970] 2
sec 325 it was contended on behalf of the contemers that law of contempt
must be read without encroaching upon the guaranteed freedom of speech
D and expression in Article 19 of the Constitution and the intention of the
contemner in making the statement should be examined in the light of his
political views as he was at liberty to put them before the people. It was
further argued as that the species of contempt called 'scandalising the court'
had fallen in desuetude and was no longer enforced in England, the freedom
E of speech and expression gave immunity to the appellant-contemner to
publicise the political philosophy in which he believed. Rejecting such a
plea, the Court held:

"The appellant has contended before us that the law of contempt
should be so applied that the freedom of speech and expression are
F not whittled down. This is true. The spirit underlying Article 19( I )(a)
must have due play but we cannot overlook the provisions of the
second clause of the article. While it is intended that there should be
freedom of speech and expression, it is also intended that in the
exercise of the right, contempt of court shall not be committed. The
words of the second clause are:
G
'Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (I) shall affect the operation
of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law, in
so far as such law imposes reasonable restriction on the exercise
of the right conferred by the sub-clause ... in relation to contempt
H of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.'
IN RE :ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHl,J.] 239
These provisions are to be read with Articles 129 and 215 which A
specially confer on this Court and the High Courts the power to
punish for contempt of themselves. Article 19( I )(a) guarantees
complete freedom _of speech and expression but it also makes an
exception in respect of contempt of court. The guaranteed right on
which the functioning of our democracy rests, is intended to give
protection to expression of free opinions to change political and social B
conditions and to advance human knowledge. While the right is
essential to a free society, the Constitution has itself imposed
restrictions, in relation to contempt of court and it cannot therefore be
said that the right abolishes the law ef contempt or that attacks upon
judges and courts will be condoned." C
In Sheela Barse v. Union of India and Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 226 the
Court acknowledged that the broader right of a citizen to criticise the systemic
inadequacies in the larger public interest. It is the privileged right of the
Indian citizen to believe what he considers to be true and to speak out his
mind, though not, perhaps, always with the best of tastes; and speak perhaps, D
with greater courage than care for exactitude. Judiciary is not exempt from
such criticism. Judicial institutions are, and should be made, of stronger stuff
intended to endure the thrive even in such hardy climate. But we find no
justification to the resort to this freedom and privilege to criticise the
proceedings during their pendency by persons who are parties and participants E
therein.

The law of contempt itself envisages various exceptions as incorporated
in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Besides the aforesaid defences envisaged under
the Act, the court can, in appropriate cases, consider any other defence put
forth by the respondent which is not incompatible with the dignity of the F
court and the law of contempt. Taking a cue from the language of Section
8 of the Act. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that a reply submitted to a contempt notice can, in no case, amount to contempt
of court in the light of second exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code. Such a broad and general proposition is contrary to the law of contempt G
_.., as adjudicated by the courts in the country from time to time and the limits
prescribed by the Act and the judicial pronouncements which are well within
the knowledge of all reasonable citizens. It has to be always kept in mind that
the law of defamation under the Penal Code cannot be equated with the law
of contempt of court in general terms. The Privy Council in Surender Nath
v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, [ILR IO Cal. 109] observed H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A that "although contempt may include defamation, yet an offence of contempt
is something more than mere defamation and is of a different character".
Approving the aforesaid view, this Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v.
State of Madras, AIR 1952 SC 149 held:

"When the act of defaming a Judge is calculated to obstruct or interfere
B with the due course of justice or proper administration of law, it
would certainly amount to contempt. The offence of contempt is
really a wrong done to the public by weakening the authority and
influence of Courts of law which exist for their good. As was said by
Willmot C.J., Wilmot's Opinion p.256; Rex v. Davies 30 at p.40-41.
c "attacks upon the judges excite in the minds of the people a
general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations .... and
whenever man's allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken
it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice and in my
opinion claim out for a more rapid and immediate redress than
D any judges as private individuals but because they. are the channels
by which the King's justice is conveyed to the people."

What is made punishable in the Indian Penal Code is the offence of
defamation as defamation and not as contempt of court. If the
defamation of a subordinate court amounts to contempt of Court
E proceedings can certainly be taken under S.2, Contempt of Courts
Act, quite apart from the fact that other remedy may be open to the
aggrieved officer under S.499, Penal Code. But a libel attacking the
•
integrity of a Judge may not in the circumstances of a particular case
amount to a c;ontempt at all, although it may be the subject matter of
libel proceeding. This is clear from the observation of the Judicial
F Committee in the case of the Matter of a Special Reference from the
Bahama Islands, 1989 A.C. 188."

Even a person claiming the benefit of second exception to Section 499
of the Indian Penal Code, is required to show that the opinion expressed by
G him was in good faith which related to the conduct of a public servant in the
discharge of his public functions or respecting his character so far as his
character appears in that conduct. Under the law of contempt statements
made in pleadings, petitions and affidavits of the parties, in a number of
cases, have been held defamatory statements amounting to offences under the
section unless it is shown that they fall within any of the exceptions. The
H statements made in an affidavit filed in the court was held to amount to a
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.j 241

criminal contempt by this Court in In Re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary A
--<
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi and Ors., (1995] 3 SCC
619] The benefit of the exception even under the law of defamation, much
less in contempt proceedings may not be available if the insinuations are
made against an institution of the State and not restricted to the person as an
individual or a collection of persons.
B
Relying upon the observations made by this Court in P.N. Duda v. P.
Shiv Shanker and Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 167 it has been argued on behalf of
the respondents that if despite severe criticism and wild allegations made by
P. Shiv Shanker against the institution of judiciary, no action was taken, the
present proceedings also required to be dropped. In that case P. Shiv Shanker c
who, at the relevant time, was the Minister of Law, Justice and Company
Affairs, delivered a speech before a meeting of the Bar Council at Hyderabad
in which he made derogatory statement against the Supreme Court and its
dignity attributing partiality towards economically affluent sections of the
people by using language which is extremely intemperate, undignified and
unbecoming of a person of his stature and position. In his speech the Minister D
had, inter alia, observed:
·~
"The Supreme Court composed of the element from the elite class
had their unconcealed sympathy for the haves i.e. the Zamindars. As
a result, they interpreted the word 'compensation' in Article 31
contrary to the spirit and the intendment of the Constitution and ruled
E
the compensation must represent the price which a willing seller is
prepared to accept from a willing buyer. The entire programme of
Zamindari abolition suffered a setback. The Constitution had to be
amended by the I st, 14th and I 7th Amendments to remove the
oligarchic approach of the Supreme Court with little or no help. F
.•. Ultimately, this rigid reactionary and traditional outlook of property,
led to the abolition of property as a fundamental right.

Holmes Alexander in his column entitled '9 Men of Terror Squad'
made a frontal attack on the functions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It
... makes an interesting reading: G
~ Now can you tell what that black-robbed elite are going to do
next. Spring more criminals, abolish more protections. Throw
down more ultras. Rewrite more laws. Chew more clauses out of
the Constitution. May be, as a former Vice-President once said,
the American people are too dumb to understand, but I would bet H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) 2 S.C.R.

A that the outcropping of evidence at the top in testimony before
the US Senate says something about the swelling concern among
the people themselves.

Should we not ask how true Holmes Alexander was in the Indian
context.
B Twenty years of valuable time was lost in this confrontation presented
by the judiciary in introducing and implementing basic agrarian
reforms for removal of poverty what is the ultimate result. Meanwhile
even the political will seems to have given way and the resultant
effect is the improper and ineffective implementation of the land
c refonn laws by the executive and the judiciary supplementing and
complementing each other.

The Maharajas and the Rajas were anachronistic in independent India.
They had to be removed and yet the conservative element in the
ruling party gave them .privy purses. When the privy purses were
D abolished, the Supreme Court, contrary to the whole national upsurge,
held in favour of the Maharajas.

Mahadhipatis like Keshavananda and Zamindars like Golaknath
ev0ked a sympathetic cord nowhere in the whole country except the
Supreme Court of India. And the bank magnates, the representatives . ,__
E of the elitist culture of this country, ably .supported by industrialists,
the beneficiaries of independence, got higher compensation by the
intervention of the Supreme Court in Cooper casl! [R.C. Cooper v.
Union of India, [1970] I SCC 248. Anti-social elements i.e. FERA
violations, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have
F formed their haven in the Supreme Court."

After examining the entire speech, this Court found that the Minister
had examined the class composition of the Supreme Court. His view was that
the class composition of any instrument indicates its pre-disposition and its
prejudices. After referring to various judgments of this Court and the foreign
G courts, the Court held: ~

• "As we have mentioned before the speech of the Minister has to be
read in its entirety. In the speech as we have set out hereinbefore it
appears that Shri P. Shiv Shanker was making a study of the attitude
of this Court. In the portion set out herein before, it was stated that the
H Supreme Court was composed of the element from the elite class.
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI,!.] 243
Whether it is factually correct or not is another matter. In our public A
life, where the champions of the down-trodden and the politicians are
mostly from the so-called elite class, if the class composition is
analysed, it may reveal interesting factors as to whether elite class is
dominant as the champions of the oppressed or of social legislations
and the same is the position in the judiciary. But the Minister went B
on to say that because the judges had their 'unconcealed sympathy
for the haves' they interpreted the expression 'compensation' in the
manner they did. The expression 'unconcealed' is unfortunate. But
this is also an expression of opinion about an institutional pattern.
Then the Minister went on to say that because of this the word
'compensation' in Article 31 was interpreted contrary to the spirit C
and the intendment of the Constitution. The Constitution therefore
had to be amended by the l st, 14th and 17th Amendments to remove
this 'oligarchic' approach of the Supreme Court with little or no help.
The interaction of the decisions of this Court and the constitutional
amendments have been viewed by the Minister in his speech, but that
is nothing new. This by itself does not affect the administration of D
justice. On the other hand, such a study perhaps is important for the
-~
understanding of the evolution of the constitutional develop1nent. The
next portion to which reference may be made where the speaker has
referred to Holmes Alexander in his column entitled '9 Men of Terror
Squad' making a frontal attack on the functions of the U.S. Supreme E
Court. There was a comparison after making the quotation as we
have set out hereinbefore, : "One should ask the question how true
Holmes Alexander was in the Indian context". This is also a poser on
the performance of the Supreme Court. According to the speaker
twenty years of valuable time was lost in this confrontation presented
by the judiciary in introducing and implementing basic agrarian F
reforms for removal of poverty what is the ultimate result. The nation
did not exhibit the political will to implement the land reforms laws.
The removal of the Maharajas and Rajas and privy purses were
criticised because of the view taken by this Court which according to
the speaker was contrary to the whole national upsurge. This is a G
study in the historical perspective. Then he made a reference to the
Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kera/a, [ 1973] 4 SCC 225 and /. C.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR (1967) SC 1643 cases and
observed that a representative of the elitist culture of the country,
ably supported by industrialists and beneficiaries of independence,
got higher compensation by the intervention of the Supreme Court in H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Cooper Case. This is also a criticism of the judgment in R. C. Cooper
Case. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but criticism
of judgments is permissible in a free society. There is, however, one
paragraph which appears to us to be rather intemperate and that is to
the following effect:

B Anti-social elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and a
whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme
Court.

This, of course, if true, is a criticism of the laws. The Supreme Court
as it is bound to do has implemented the laws and in implementing
c the laws, it is a tribute to the Supreme Court .that it has not
-~

discri~inated between persons and persons. Criminals are entitled to
be judged in accordance with law. If anti-social elements and criminals
have benefited by decisions of the Supreme Court, the fault rests with
the laws and the loopholes in the legislation. The courts are not
deterred by such criticisms.
D
Bearing in mind the trend in the law of contempt as noticed before,
as well as some of the decisions noticed by Krishna Iyer, J. in S.
Mulgaokar case, the speech of the Minister read in its proper
>--
perspective, did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute
E or impair administration of justice. In some portions of the speech the
language used could have been avoided by the Minister having the
background of being a former judge of the High Court. The Minister
perhaps could have achieved his purpose by making his language
mild but his facts deadly. With these observations, it must be held 4'
that there was no imminent danger of interference with the
F administration of justice, not of bringing administration into disrepute.
In that view it must be held that the Minister was not guilty of
contempt of this Court."

It may be noticed that the criticism of the judicial system was made by
a person who himself had been the Judge of the High Court and was the
G
Minister at the relevant time. He had made studies about the system and -I-
expressed his opinion which, under the. circumstances, was held to be not
defamatory despite the fact that the court found that in some portion of the
speech the language used could have been avoided by the Minister having )--

'
the background of being the former Judge of the High Court. His speech,
H under the circumstances, was held to be not amounting to imminent danger
IN RE: ARUNDHATI ROY [SETHI, J.] 245
of interference with the administration of justice nor of bringing the A
administration into disrepute.

As already held, fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution
of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made
in good faith and in public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public B
interest, the courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including
the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding
which the comments are made and the )ntended purpose sought to be achieved.
All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the courts
in the name of fair criticism which, if not checked, would destroy the institution
itself. Litigant losing in the Court would be the first to impute motives to the C
judges and the institution in the name of fair criticism which cannot be
allowed for preserving the public faith in an important pillar of democratic
set up, i.e., judiciary. In Dr. D.C. Saxena's case (supra) this Court dealt with
the case of P. Shiv Shanker by observing:

In P.N Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker. [1988] 3 SCC 167 this Court had D
held that administration of justice and judges are open to public
criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the
society and their accountability must be judged by the conscience
and oath to their office, i.e, to defend and uphold the Constitution and
the laws without fear and favour. Thus the judges must do, in the E
light given to them to determine, what is right. Any criticism about
the judicial system or the judges which hampers the administration of
justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of the
judges and brings administration of justice to ridicule must be
prevented. The contempt of court proceedings arise out of that attempt.
Judgments can be criticised. Motives to the judges need not be F
attributed. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Faith
in the administration of justice is one of the pillars on which democratic
institution functions and sustains. In the free market-place of ideas
criticism about the judicial system or judges should be welcome so
long as such criticism does not impair cir hamper the administration G
of justice. This is how the courts should exercise the powers vested
in them and judges to punish a person for an alleged contempt by
taking notice of the contempt suo motu or at the behest of the litigant
or a lawyer. In that case the speech of the Law Minister in a Seminar
organised by the Bar Council and the offending portion therein were
held not contemptuous and punishable under the Act. In a democracy H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A ·judges and courts alike are, therefore, subject to criticism and if
reasonable argument or criticism in respectful language and tempered
with moderation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law
or public good, no court would treat criticism as a contempt of court."

In the instant case the respondent has not claimed to be possessing any
B special knowledge of law and the working of the institution of judiciary. She
has only claimed to be a writer of repute. She has submitted that "as an
ordinary citizen I cannot and could not have expected to make a distinction
between the Registry and the Court". It is also not denied that the respondent
was directly or indirectly associated with the Narmada Bachao AP.dolan and
C was, therefore, interested in the result of the litigation. She has not claimed ~
to have made any study regarding the working of this Court or judiciary in
the country and claims to have made the offending :mputations in her
proclaimed right of freedom of ~peech and expression as a writer. The benefit
to which Mr. P. Shiv Shanker, under the circumstances, was held entitled is,
therefore, not available to the respondent in the present proceedings. Her case
D is in no way even equal to the case of E.MS. Namboodaripad (supra). In that
case the contemner, believing in the philosophy he was propounding had
made certain observations regarding the working of the courts under the
prevalent system which, as already noticed, was found to be contemptuous. >-
E The Constitution of India has guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression to every citizen as a fundamental right. While guaranteeing such
freedom, it has also provided under Article 129 that 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. Similar power has been conferred
on the High Courts of the States under Article 215. Under the Constitution,
F 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). If a citizen,
G therefore, in the garb of exercising right of free expression under Article
19(1), tries to scandalise the court or undermines the dignity of the court, +- _
then the court would be entitled to exercise power under Article 129 or
Article 215, as the case may be. In relation to a pending proceeding before
the Court, while showing cause to the notices issued, when it is stated the
court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice on an absurd despicable,
H entirely unsubstantiated petition, it amounts to a destructive attack on the
INRE:ARUNDHATIROY [SETHJ,J.) 247
reputation and the credibility of the institution and it undermines the public A
confidence in the judiciary as a whole and by no stretch of imagination, can
be held to be a fair criticism of the Court's proceeding. When a scurrilous
attack is made in relation to a pending proceeding and the notice estates that
the issuance of notice to show cause was intended to silence criticism and
muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it, is a direct B
attack on the institution itself, rather than the conduct of an individual Judge.
The meaning of the expressions used cannot come within the extended concept
of fair criticism or expression of opinion, particularly to the case of the
contemner in the present case, who on her own right is an acclaimed writer
.>• in English. At one point of time, we had seriously considered the speech of
Lord Atkin, where the learned Judge has stated: C
"The path of criticism is public way: the wrongheaded are permitted
to err therein ... Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed
to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments
ofordinary men." [Andre Paulv. Attorney General, (1936), AC 322.
D
and to find out wheth.er there can be a balancing between the two public
interests, the freedom of expression and the dignity of the court. We also
took note of observations of Bharucha, J. in the earlier contempt case against
the present contemner, who after recording his disapproval of the statement,
observed that the Court's shoulders are broad enough to shrug off the
comments. But in view of the utterances made by the contemnor in her show E
causes filed and not a word of remorse, till the conclusion of the hearing, it
is difficult for us either to shrug off or to hold the accusations made as
comments of outspoken ordinary man and permit the wrongheaded to err
therein, as observed by Lord Atkin.

We are not impressed with any of the arguments of the learned counsel F
for the respondent which could persuade us to drop the proceedings and are
of the opinion that it has to be found on facts as to whether the offending
portion of the affidavit of the respondent amounts to scandalising the court
and thus a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
G
In the offending portion of her affidavit, the respondent has accused the
court of proceeding with absurd, despicable and entirely unsubstantiated
petition which, according to her, amounted to the court displaying a disturbing
willingness to issue notice. She has further attributed motives to the court of
silencing criticism and muzzling dissent by harassing and intimidating those
who disagree with it. Her contempt for the court is evident from the assertion H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A "by entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local police station
does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own reputation
and credibility considerable harm". In the affidavit filed in these proceedings,
the respondent has reiterated what she has stated in her earlier affidavit and
has not shown any repentance. She wanted to become a champion to the
cause of the writers by asserting that persons like her can allege anything
B they desire and accuse any person or institution without any circumspection,
limitation or restraint. Such an attitude shows her persistent and consistent
attempt to malign the institution of the judiciary found to be most important
pillar in the Indian democratic set up. This is no defence to say that as no
actual damage has been done to the judiciary, the proceedings be dropped.
C The well-known proposition of law is that it punishes the archer as soon as
the arrow is shot no matter if it misses to hit the target. The respondent is
proved to have shot the arrow, intended to damage the institution of the
judiciary and thereby weaken the faith of the public in general and if such
an attempt is not prevented, disastrous consequences are likely to follow
resulting in the destruction of rule of Jaw, the expected norm of any civilised
D society.

On the basis of the record, the position of law our findings on various ~
pleas raised and the conduct of the respondent, we have no doubt in our mind
that the respondent has committed the criminal contempt of this Court by
E scandalising 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 should be taken in the matter. However, showing the
p magnanimity of law by keeping in mind that the respondent is a woman, and
hoping that better sense and wisdom shall dawn upon the respondent in the
future to serve the cause of art and literature by her creative skill and
imagination, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced
to symbolic imprisonment besides paying a fine of Rs. 2000. ·

G While convicting the respondent for the contempt of the Court, we 7'- -
sentence 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.

S.K.S. Petition disposed of.