Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Contempt for effect

Contempt for effect

Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: March 8, 2002

Since TV cameras and mediapersons are not allowed inside Tihar Jail, it is not surprising that the celebrated latecomer to the Narmada movement, Ms Arundhati Roy, quietly paid the Rs 2,000 fine on Thursday and left the prison premises amid provocative slogans against the Supreme Court.

Going to jail for less than 24 hours adds ersatz to her curriculum vitae; serving a three-month sentence in the barracks sans arclights would hardly have enhanced her glamour. In any case, she extracted all the media mileage that could possibly have been derived when she journeyed to Tihar accompanied by hordes of mediapersons who virtually outnumbered her rowdy supporters. Ms Roy had patiently waited several months for this "moment of glory" to transpire. With careful premeditation, she persisted in using uncomplimentary language against the Supreme Court and steadfastly refused to tone down her strident critique. Nevertheless, in a departure from practice, the judges went to the extent of urging that she file a fresh affidavit to replace an earlier, intemperately worded version. Her dogged non-compliance left the country's apex judicial authority no alternative but to hand out a jail sentence, howsoever token. The Supreme Court, however, acted with as much foresight as Ms Roy in framing the sentence. It imposed a small fine equivalent to a mere 40 dollars, which is probably what she charges for penning those many words from her international publishers and literary agents. The Court, thus, could not be accused of taking a vindictive or punitive attitude. Yet, by giving her the alternative of paying up this small amount (thereby, voluntarily accepting her "guilt"), or facing 90 days in prison, the judiciary ensured she was tempted into admitting her error.

It is unfortunate for anybody to be sent to prison for committing contempt of court. The relevant penal provisions are not only archaic but draconian and urgently in need of revision. Besides, in several cases, the apex court has demonstrated a prickliness in contempt-related matters that does not behove the country's highest seat of justice. This newspaper has been hauled over the coals on such charges and it is not a pleasant experience. Despite that, we find ourselves unable to sympathise with Ms Roy's behaviour because of its wilful component. In a democracy, the majesty of the law cannot and must not be challenged by words or actions aimed deliberately at lowering the prestige of the judiciary. While every citizen has a right to criticise a verdict, aspersions cannot be cast on the courts if, in their wisdom, they do not uphold a litigant's plaint. By indulging in the kind of antics that Ms Roy did, she has only provided an example to the VHP and Bajrang Dal which insist that courts have no jurisdiction over matters of faith like the Ayodhya dispute. It is to be hoped that saner leaders of the Narmada Bachao Andolan shall now prevail over Ms Roy to abandon her adventurist, self-glorifying pursuits so that the cause of the oustees is not damaged further.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements