CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 319 of 1994 PETITIONER: NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/10/1999 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND CJ & S.P. BHARUCHA & B.N. KIRPAL JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1999 Supp(4) SCR 5
The following Orders of the Court were delivered:
DR. A.S, ANAND, C.J. This petition has been filed by the State of Gujarat
bringing to the notice of the Court how the petitioner-Narmada Bachao
Andolan-had been reacting to the interim order of this Court permitting the
increase of the height of the dam to RL 85 meters and about the threats of
protests, public meetings and of undertaking Satyagrahas etc., on account
of that order. Reference is made particularly to the interview of Ms. Medha
Patkar which appeared in the Hindustan Times of 27.6.1999 and some other
newspaper reports and press releases issued by the petitioner. Our
attention has also been drawn to an article which appeared in the Weekly
News Magazine `Outlook1 and to some portions of a Book titled “The Greater
Common Good” by Ms. Arundhati Roy.
On 22nd July, 1999, we made the following order :
At the outset, our attention has been drawn to certain statements, press
releases, interviews, etc., given by the petitioners themselves or by some
others under the aegis of the petitioner-Narmada Bachao Andolan. Copies of
some of those statements, etc., have been filed along with I.A. No. 14 by
the State of Gujarat.
Our attention has also been drawn to an article in the weekly news magazine
“Outlook” dated May 24, 1999 under the title “The Greater Common Good” by
Ms. Arundhati Roy. A book under the same title, i.e., “The Greater Common
Good” by Arundhati Roy, which appears to have been dedicated to “The
Narmada, and all the life she sustains and Shripad, Nandini, Sylvie, Alok,
Medha, Baba Amte and their colleagues in the NBA”, has also been brought to
our notice.
We have gone through the statements, the press releases, the article and
certain portions of the book referred to above. Prima facie it appears to
us that there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the dignity of the Court
and to influence the course of justice. These writings, which present a
rather one sided and distorted picture have appeared in spite of our
earlier directions restraining the parties from going to the press, etc.,
during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court.
However, before we decide to proceed any further, we consider it proper to
appoint an amicus to advise the Court about the action, if any, which is
required to be taken in this respect as also in respect of the writ
petition itself.
We request Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate, President of the Supreme
Court Bar Association, to act as amicus and advise the court.
After hearing learned amicus as well as other learned counsel appearing in
the case, who all rose above the case of their clients to assist the Court,
we are of the opinion that the petitioner-NBA and its leader Ms. Medha
Patkar have knowingly made comments on pending proceedings and have prima
facie disobeyed the interim injunctions issued by this Court on 11.4.1997
and 5.11.1998. Prima facie the threats held out by the petitioners and its
leaders also appear to be an attempt to prejudice or interfere with the due
course of judicial proceedings. Litigants must realise that Courts cannot
be forced by pressure tactics to decide pending cases in the manner in
which the concerned party desires. It will be a negation of the Rule of Law
if the Courts were to act under such pressure.
Some of the objectionable passages in the Book, ” The Greater Common Good”
by Ms. Arundhati Roy are as follows:
I stood on a hill and laughed out loud.
I had crossed the Narmada by boat from Jalsindhi and climbed the headland
on the opposite bank from where I could see, ranged across the crowns of
law, bald hills, the tribal hamlets of Sikka, Surung, Neemgavan and
Domkhedi. 1 could see their airy, fragile homes. 1 could see their fields
and the forests behind them. I could see little children with littler goats
scuttling across the landscape like motorised peanuts, I knew I was looking
at a civilisation older than Hinduism, slated-sanctioned (by the highest
court in the land) -to be drowned this monsoon when the waters of the
Sardar Sarovar reservoir will rise to submerge it.”
“Why did I laugh?
Because I suddenly remembered the tender concern with which the Supreme
Court Judges in Delhi (before vacating the legal stay on further
construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam) had enquired whether tribal
children in the resettlement colonies would have children’s park to play
in. The lawyers representing the Government had hastened to assure them
that indeed they would, and what’s more, mat there were seesaws and slides
and swings in every park. I looked up at the endless sky and down at the
river rushing past and for a brief, brief moment the absurdity of it all
reversed my rage and I laughed. I meant no disrespect.”
“Who owns this land? Who owns its rivers? Its forests? Its fish? These are
huge questions. They are being taken hugely seriously by the State. They
are being answered in one voice by every institution at its command -the
army, the police, the bureaucracy, the courts. And not just answered, but
answered unambiguously, in bitter, brutal ways”.
“According to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984) the
Government is not legally bound to provide a displaced person anything but
a cash compensation. Imagine that. A cash compensation, to be paid by an
Indian government official to an illiterate tribal man (the women get
nothing) in a land where even the postman demands a tip for a delivery!
Most Tribal people have no formal title to their land and therefore cannot
claim compensation anyway. Most tribal people-or let’s say most small
farmers-have as much use for money as a Supreme Court Judge has for a bag
of fertiliser”
Ms. Arundhati Roy is not a party to the proceedings pending in this Court.
She has, however, made comments on matters connected with the case being
fully alive to the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. The comments
made by her are prima facie a misrepresentation of the proceedings in this
Court. Judicial process and institution cannot be permitted to be
scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation in such a blatant manner
in which it has been done by her.
While hypersensitivity and peevishness have no place in judicial
proceedings-vicious stultification and vulgar debunking cannot be permitted
to pollute the stream of justice. Indeed under our Constitution there are
positive values like right to life, freedom of speech and expression, but
freedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to distort orders
of the Court and present incomplete and a one side picture deliberately,
which has the tendency to scandalise the Court. Whatever may be the motive
of Ms. Arundhati Roy, it is quite obvious that she decided to use her
literally fame by misinforming the public and projecting in a totally
incorrect manner, how the proceedings relating to Resettlement and
Rehabilitation had shaped in this Court and distorting various directions
given by the Court during the last about 5 years. The writings referred to
above have the tendency to create prejudice against this Court. She seems
to be wholly ignorant of the task of the Court. The manner in which she has
given twist to the proceedings and orders of the Court is in bad taste and
not expected from any citizen, to say the least.
We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and
expression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings
and orders of the Court and deliberately paint an absolutely wrong and
incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the Court and bring
it into disrepute or ridicule. The right of criticising, in good faith in
private or public, a judgment of the Court cannot be exercised, with malice
or by attempting to impair the administration of justice. Indeed, freedom
of speech and expression is “life blood of democracy” but his freedom is
subject to certain qualifications. An offence of scandalising the Courtier
se is one such qualification, since that offence exists to protect the
administration of justice and is reasonably justified and necessary in a
democratic society. It is not only an offence under the contempt of Courts
act but is sui generis. Courts are not unduly sensitive to fair comment or
even outspoken comments being made regarding their judgments and orders
made objectively, fairly and without any malice, but no one can be
permitted to distort orders of the Court and deliberately give a slant to
its proceedings, which have the tendency to scandalise the Court or bring
it to ridicule, in the larger interest of protecting administration of
justice.
The action of the petitioner and its leaders Ms. Medha Patkar as well as
writings of Ms. Arundhati Roy have caused us much anguish and when we
express our displeasure of the action of Ms. Arundhati Roy in making
distorted writings or the manner in which the leaders of the petitioner Ms.
Medha Patkar and Mr. Dharmadhikari have, after giving assurances to this
Court, acted in breach of the injunctions, we do so out of anguish and not
out of anger. May be the parties were over-zealous in projecting their
point of view on a matter involving a large segment of tribal population,
but they should not have given to themselves the liberty of acting in the
objectionable manner as already noticed. We are unhappy at the way the
leaders of NBA and Ms. Arundhati Roy have attempted to undermine the
dignity of the Court. We expected better behaviour from them.
After giving this matter our thoughtful consideration and keeping in view
the importance of the issue of Resettlement and Rehabilitation of the PAFs,
which we have been monitoring for the last five years, we are not inclined
to initiate contempt 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 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.
After 22nd of July, 1999 when learned amicus was appointed, nothing has
come to our notice which may show that Ms. Arundhati Roy has continued with
her objectionable writings insofar as the judiciary is concerned. She may
have by now realised her mistake. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to
now let the matter rest here and not to pursue it any further. The
application (LA. 14) is accordingly disposed of.
Before parting with this order we wish to place on record our deep
appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the amicus, Shri K.K.
Venugopal, Senior Advocate and all other learned counsel appearing in the
case.
Let the main Writ Petition be now placed for directions on 4th Nov. 1999 at
2 P.M.
While I record my disapproval of the statements that are complained of, I
am not inclined to take action in contempt against Medha Patkar, Shripad
Dharmadhikari and Arundhati Roy because 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,
I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance rendered to the Court by the
learned amicus curiae and by learned counsel for the parties.
The LA. (no. 14) is, accordingly, disposed of.