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.