Holding

The Supreme Court held that although the conduct prima facie amounted to contempt, it would not initiate contempt proceedings in view of the larger public interest in the resettlement and rehabilitation issues.

Summary

The State of Gujarat moved the Supreme Court alleging that the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and its leaders, as well as author Arundhati Roy, were violating interim injunctions and attempting to prejudice pending proceedings on the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam by issuing press releases, interviews, and publishing a book. The Court examined whether these actions amounted to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noting that the statements were a deliberate misrepresentation of the Court’s orders and had the tendency to scandalise the judiciary. While the Court found prima facie contempt, it chose not to initiate contempt proceedings, emphasizing the larger public interest in the resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons. The Court expressed disapproval of the conduct but ordered that the matter be let rest, disposing of the interim application. The order also directed that the main writ petition be listed for further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the statements, press releases, and publications by NBA, its leaders, and Arundhati Roy constitute contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the alleged violations of interim injunctions justify the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Whether the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution can be invoked to protect the contested statements.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

contempt of courtfreedom of speechmisrepresentationinterim injunctionNarmada damresettlement and rehabilitationSupreme Courtpublic protestmediaArundhati RoyMedha Patkar

Judgment

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 15, 1999
•''

[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] B

Contempt of Courts Act, I 971 :

Contempt ofCourt-Interim order passed by Supreme Court with regard
to Height of Dam on river Narmada-Application filed by State of Gujarat C
stating that leaders of Narmada Bachao Ando/an had been reacting to order
passed by this Court by way of threat ofprotests, public meetings, undertaking

- Satyagrahas, news reports, press releases, articles in news magazines etc.-
Objectionable passages in a book also brought to notice of the Court-Held,
NBA and its leaders have knowingly made comments on pending proceedings D
and have· prim a facie disobeyed interim injunctions passed by this Court-
Prima facie the threats held out by NBA and its leaders also appear to be
an attempt to prejudice or interfere with due course ofjudicial proceedings-
Comments on matters connected with the case made in the book by its author
are prima facie a misrepresentation ofthe proceedings in this Court-Freedom
of speech and expression does not include freedom to distort orders of the E
Court and present incomplete and a one sided picture deliberately, which
has the tendency to scandalise the Court and bring it into disrepute Qd
ridicule-The relevant passages in the book have the tendency to create
prejudice against this Court-However, keeping in view the importance of
the issue of resettlement and rehabilitation of PAFs, which this Court has F
been monitoring, the Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings
against NBA, its leaders and the author concerned-It is hoped that these
persons would desist from acting in a manner which has the tendency to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or which violates
the injunctions issued by this Court from time to time-Constitution of India,
Article I 29. G

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 319 of
1994; I.A. No. 14 of 1999.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
5
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A K.K. Venugopal, (A.C.), Shanti Bhushan, Ashok H. Desai, T.R.
Andhyarujina, (Sushi! Kumar Jain) Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan,
Guru Krishna Kumar, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Pallav Sisodia,
Tufail A. Khan, P. Parmeshwaran, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms. H. Wahi, D.M. Nargolkar,
S.K. Agnihotri, A. Mishra and Ms. Anjali Doshi for the appearing parties.

B 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 .t
C 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
D News Magazine 'Outlook' and to some portions ofa Book titled "The Greater
Common Good" by Ms. Arundhati Roy.

On 22nd July, 1999, we made the following order :

E "

0 At the outset, our attention has been drawn to certain statements,
press releases, interviews, etc., given by the petitioners themselves or
by sorr.e others under the aegis of the petitioner-Narmada Bachao
Andolan. Copies of some of those statements, etc., have been filed
F 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
G 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
H article and certain portions of the book referred to above. Prima.Jacie
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 7
it appears to us that there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the A
~-

~:
' 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
B

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
c
Supreme Court Bar Association, to act as amicus and advise the court.

~.

After hearing learned amicus as well as other learned counsel appearing D
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
E
course of judicial proceedings. Litigants must realise that Courts cannot be
.f 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.
F
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
G
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. I could see their airy, fragile homes. I
could see their fields and the forests behind them. I could see little
..
.,,: )'
children with littler goats scuttling across the landscape like motorised H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
.\
A peanuts. I knew I was looking at a civilisation older than Hindui~m, ~

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?
.. I'-

B
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
> .,
c assure them that indeed they would, and what's more, that 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."
D

"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.
E And not just answered, but answered unambiguously, in bitter, brutal
ways".

"According to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984)
F 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
G 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. A.rundhati Roy is not a party to the proceedings pending in this
Court. She has, however, made comments on matters connected with the case
H being fully alive to the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. The
.,. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 9
)
. comments made by her are primafacie a misrepresentation of the proceedings A
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 B
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. c
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 D
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 E
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 F
and expression is "life blood of democracy" but his freedom is subject to
""·
certain qualifications. An offence of scandalising the Court per 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 G
are not unduly s~nsitive 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. H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
,.
A The a~tion 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
B 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 >
c 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
D 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.
E
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
F now let the matter rest here and not to pursue it any further. The application
(I.A. 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
G 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,
H I am not inclined to take action in contempt against Medha Patkar, Shripad '(
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 11
Dhannadhikari and Arundhati Roy because the Court's shoulders are broad A
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.
B
The I.A. (no. 14) is, accordingly, disposed of.

RP. I.A. disposed of.

"'