Narmada Bachao Andolat Case Analysis
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
IDENTIFICATION
In Re: ARUNDHATI ROY ……………….. CONTEMNER [2002 Indlaw SC 145, (2002) 3 SCC 343, AIR 2002 SC 1375] CORAM - R.P. Sethi, G.B. Pattanaik, J.J.
JURISDICTION – The power of the Supreme Court to take case suo moto and to punish for its own contempt has been granted by Article 129 of the Indian Constitution.
FACTS IN ISSUE
The facts of the case, which are not seriously disputed, are that an organisation, namely, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition u/Art. 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 …show more content…
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 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 writ proceedings, published an article entitled "The Greater Common Good" which was published in Outlook Magazine and in some portion of a book 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. But, showing its magnanimity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the matter rehabilitation and resettlement of the local tribes has a far reaching consequence and proceeding …show more content…
Meaning of the word “scandalising” 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.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the contemner guilty under the offence of criminal contempt for “scandalising the Court” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
SYNTHESIS
1. Re: S. Mulgaokar [1978 Indlaw SC 323]
Beg, CJ observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism but when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which is designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred this judgment to support its findings.
2. Dr. D.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India [1996 Indlaw SC
IDENTIFICATION
In Re: ARUNDHATI ROY ……………….. CONTEMNER [2002 Indlaw SC 145, (2002) 3 SCC 343, AIR 2002 SC 1375] CORAM - R.P. Sethi, G.B. Pattanaik, J.J.
JURISDICTION – The power of the Supreme Court to take case suo moto and to punish for its own contempt has been granted by Article 129 of the Indian Constitution.
FACTS IN ISSUE
The facts of the case, which are not seriously disputed, are that an organisation, namely, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition u/Art. 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 …show more content…
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 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 writ proceedings, published an article entitled "The Greater Common Good" which was published in Outlook Magazine and in some portion of a book 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. But, showing its magnanimity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the matter rehabilitation and resettlement of the local tribes has a far reaching consequence and proceeding …show more content…
Meaning of the word “scandalising” 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.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the contemner guilty under the offence of criminal contempt for “scandalising the Court” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
SYNTHESIS
1. Re: S. Mulgaokar [1978 Indlaw SC 323]
Beg, CJ observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism but when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which is designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred this judgment to support its findings.
2. Dr. D.C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India [1996 Indlaw SC