Arundhati Roy’s case of Contempt of Court Act

Sometimes those who wish and do well for the country fall in a soup of misjudgment and legal harassment. Being thick skinned and unapologetic in the way they function helps them from drowning and rising above the law with public support and media coverage for their propaganda and cause. What follows is a case of misuse of Contempt of Court against author and social activist Arundhati Roy who still continues to inspire and support the unheard.

The Contempt of Courts Act (1971) is a criminal offence; people can be charged and have to serve one month in jail as punishment. One shows contempt of court when you deliberately make it harder the court to come to a legal decision or do the following things:

1) Obstruct justice, either by lying or misleading the court

2) Disrespect a judge or jury

3) Fail to turn up in court when called

In regard to the affidavit filed in response to the petitioners, Arundhati Roy comes out clean and strong.  She takes a stand for what she firmly believes in, responds with confidence and comes across as honest as oppose to the petitioners who have no strong back up, lack information, allegations appear fabricated and have hastily filed the FIR. I do not believe that what she was alleged for was a real case of contempt of court. She has been framed by lawyers who probably had a lot of free time in their hands, wanted media attention, were malicious and spited her.

Arundhati Roy was alleged that she said the following words “Supreme Court of India is the thief and all these are this touts” and that “goodas in a drunken state” who accompanied her threatened the petitioners’ lives. To which she responds that these allegations are from a “shoddily drafted as the FIR” with “lies, the looseness, the ludicrousness of the charges.” She has strong evidence of the media and fellow companions’ presence during that time to prove so.

She specifies that she is writer and not the leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan however she admired and supports the cause along with the ‘adivasis’ who will lose their lands, homes, livelihood and history in that year’s monsoon due to rising waters of the reservoir of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, with no land being offered to them for rehabilitation by the government. She understands the plight of the villagers and gives them a voice and platform to address their problem. Even in her affidavit, she creatively mentions it repeatedly so that it generates as much media coverage as possible to earn supporters and fight against the mistreatment of socially backward class.

According to her, she did not violate any of the terms under the Contempt of Court Act, did not shout slogans against the court or wanted any one killed and was even present in all her court callings. The fact that she doesn’t even know who her petitioners are is ironic.

Blatant and honest, Arundhati Roy has previously been a victim of false allegations and legal harassment, even with her writings but she takes it in her stride and believes that one cannot be feared, enforced, interfered or dragged to court every time she publishes her views on issues. Yes, those who oppose, disagree, criticize or denounce can choose to do so on the pretext of freedom of speech and expression and she shares that right equally with them. There are bound to be hurdles especially are a male dominated country when it comes to fighting a cause for the unheard clan, voicing her opinion and standing for justice.

India has its own set of problems such as bankruptcy, economic distress and religious intolerance  to deal with as highlighted by Ms. Roy, let alone fabricate issues and frame social workers in public domain who try their best to highlight issue unknown to the common man. She fought back the case by further filing a case of civil and criminal defamation ought to be made to pay damages for the time they have wasted of Apex Court by filing false charges and along with apologizing to all those citizens who are patiently awaiting the attention of the Supreme Court in more important matters. A comeback could not have been better than this. There wasn’t a hint of apology or remorse in the affidavit and she stood by it, which is noteworthy.