SC takes exception to Arundhati Roy's affidavit

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, AUG. 2. The Supreme Court today said that if it decided to hold an inquiry into the veracity of the allegations made in the contempt petition before proceeding against the alleged contemnors - the Booker Prize winner, Ms. Arundhati Roy, and others - the parties concerned would have to assist the probe.

But, the Bench comprising Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, during the resumed hearing of the case, made it clear that in the event ``we decide to drop the proceedings, the alleged contemnors would be issued notices for their contemptuous assertions in their affidavits filed pursuant to the notices issued to them''.

The Bench also told the petitioners - Mr. J.R. Parashar, Mr. Umed Singh and Mr. R.K. Virmani - that if the allegations made against the respondents were found to be false, ``you may also be sent to jail''.

Earlier, the Bench took exception to the affidavits filed by Ms. Arundati Roy and the Narmada Bachao Andolan leader, Ms. Medha Patkar, in reply to a contempt notice and observed that ``the tenor of the affidavits may itself be contemptuous''.

When the Bench asked Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, senior counsel for Ms. Patkar, about the ``derogatory'' remarks made in her affidavit and why she should not be proceed against, the counsel said, ``this was her perception of the notice as well as the general perception. If this is contempt, then send her to jail. she is ready for it.'' The counsel submitted that there was a perception among the people that ``the courts were far too removed from the reality and were using the contempt powers against those who criticise judgments''. He said in no other case notices would have been issued on a petition full of infirmities as in the present petition.

Ms. Roy, who argued for herself, said ``I find the issuance of notice insulting to me. I stand by my affidavit. If you think it is inappropriate and contemptuous, please proceed against me''.

The Bench told Ms. Roy that no one disputed her acclaimed writings and achievements but ``that does not mean you could impute motives. If you feel that we have a personal hysteria against you, you are wrong. We are here to administer the rule of law''.

The amicus curiae, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor-General, described the tone and tenor of the affidavits of Ms. Roy and Ms. Patkar as improper.

When Ms. Roy complained to the court that her husband was not allowed inside the court by the security staff, the Bench was told by the Registry that as per rules only the litigants and their counsel were allowed inside court rooms. Ms. Roy's husband was not allowed as no notice was issued to him.

When Mr. Shanthi Bhushan said that it was a normal practice in courts across the country to have open hearings, the Bench made it clear that except when cases were heard ``in camera'', proceedings before the court were open to the public.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : India, U.S. hold talks
Next     : Musharraf for Hurriyat's role in dialogue