The Hindu : Judicial restraint

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 09, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Judicial restraint

Sir, — Your Editorial `The conviction of Arundhati Roy' (March 7) rightly and forcefully emphasises the need for a `tremendous amount of restraint' while invoking contempt jurisdiction by courts. Constitutional democracy is as powerful an institution in the U.K. and in the U.S. as in this country and independence of the judiciary is an essential ingredient respected and protected in those countries as well as in India. But very rarely do the courts in the U.K invoke the contempt power. In the U.S., the contempt power is invoked only in rarest of rare cases. Indeed, scandalising courts and judges in appropriate cases should be dealt with sternly.

In the case of Arundhati Roy, the conviction was handed down for her criticism of the apex court's judgment on the Narmada dam case and asserting her right, in an affidavit filed in reply to the contempt petition against her, "to criticise any judgment of any court that I believe to be unjust''. I quote Lord Denning's observation in a leading case in the year 1968: "Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself''. Your view that the Supreme Court has failed to exercise judicial restraint seems to be apt. A fresh look at the contempt law of this country is overdue.

M.P.R. Nair,
Kochi, Kerala

Sir, — Your Editorial `The conviction of Arundhati Roy' was commendable. The Supreme Court, through its judgment, has exposed its smallness of vision. While the court might have thought of itself to be magnanimous by extending a special favour to Arundhati Roy as a woman, it is, for her, rather humiliating. The court forgot that showing this sort of magnanimity is a form of reverse discrimination. This becomes poignant when it is realised that she is before the court on account of NBA, a movement led by a woman, who by her courage and perseverance has defied all our traditional notions of a woman. The court also advised Ms. Roy to stick to her path of contributing to art and literature. The implication is that she should better know her place and should not enter the realm of social activism as if that is of lesser value than contributing to art and literature. It reveals a prejudiced view of people's movements and the inconvenient questions that they raise before the elite class of the learned. In a democratic setup nobody should be above criticism.

Thomas John,
Aluva, Kerala

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Cold-shouldering peace

Kerala's financial conundrum