1999(8) Supreme 563
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S.P. Bharucha & B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Narmada Bachao Andolan -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
I.A. No. 14 of 1999
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 319 of 1994
Decided on 15-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), Shanti Bhushan, Ashok H. Desai, T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocate, (Sushil Kumar Jain,) Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan, Guru Krishna Kumar, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Pallav Sisodia, Tufail A. Khan, P. Parmeshwaran, B.V. Balram Das, Ms. H. Wahi, D.M. Nargolkar, S.K. Agnihotri, A. Mishra, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Advocates.
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. 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. 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 this 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 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. (Paras 3, 6 & 7)
Order
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.-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 of 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 ‘Outlook’ and to some portions of a Book titled “The Greater Common Good” by Ms. Arundhati Roy.
2. 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.
... ... ... ..."
3. 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.
4. Some of the objectionable passages in the Book, “The Greater Common Goods” 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. I could see their airy, fragile homes. I could see their fields and the forests behind them. I could see little children withlittler goats scuttling across the landscape like motorized peanuts. I knew I was looking at a civilisation older than Hinduism, slated - sanctioned (by the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.