Disclaimer:
The views and statements expressed in this article and the one
appeared on this web site last week (4th March 2002) and the ones
that are going to follow in the ensuing weeks are all either my own
statements or what I believe as a common citizen. The administrators
of this web site and the organization to which this author belongs
to are not responsible for the words and sentences in these articles
on this topic.
The article that was published in this column on 4th March
2002 and this one and the ones to follow in the coming weeks are written
purely with the concern to strengthen our democracy and none of the
views and statements of this author on this subject is motivated by
the ulterior or unfair motives. This author, as any other true citizen
of this great nation believes in the strength of our democracy and
especially in the strength of our Judiciary, which is the custodian
of the proper functioning of other Pillars of our large Democracy.
I strongly believe that a judge would not and can not err unless partisan
attitudes and ulterior motives creep into his /her mind. Such is the
intensity of respect and confidence that this author reposes in our
Judges and in our Judicial administration. Also, these articles are
not meant to comment on the verdict in the CR No. 2/2001 and CR No.
10/2001. They were referred to only to convey the views of this author
to the readers on the issues related to the Contempt of Court and
the freedom to express opinions on pending cases (sub-judice).
The above mentioned Contempt of Court cases and the judgements
in those cases are referred to in these articles only as illustrations
as any academic scholar would do in his/her analysis. At the same
time, this author believes that there must be healthy discussions
on the conflict between the "Freedom of Speech" and the "Contempt
of Court Law" in order to explore avenues either to amend or to give
up this law with an objective to strengthen our democracy. These articles
are written with utmost courtesy and respect to the Judiciary and
the purpose is not to invite controversies and troubles.
The purpose would be met if the readers pick up the salient
and relevant points on this issue and mobilize support to bring in
a healthy change with regard to this law, which without no doubt would
strengthen our democracy and more importantly the dignity, the public
confidence and the Deference of the Court and the Judges.
Any agreement with the views of Ms Arundhati Roy or anyone
else, which may be contrary to the belief of the Court, is genuine
and innocent. If anything is objectionable, they are inadvertent and
there are no motives behind them. Since the objective is to disseminate
the views of this authors on this issue and to spread healthy discussion
and debate on his views, and not to show off his courage or disrespect
to Judiciary and Judges, this author does not hesitate to beg pardon
of the concerned who may be hurt because of his naïve and innocent
comments, views, and opinions.
- R Rajan
The
much-awaited verdict in the contempt of court case against Arundhati
Roy was delivered on 6th March 2002. Except for few sensible criticism
of the judgement by the Editors of 'reputed' dailies, there was hardly
even a murmur against this draconian and totalitarian law. Even if
the Press and the leading figures in political and social life of
this nation are hesitating to talk about this judgement fearing that
they may fall prey to this law, at least they should have initiated
a debate on continuing this law in our democracy. We would discuss
the origin of this law, the need for it and what it should cover,
the definitions of Public Confidence and Deference to the Court, the
international views on this law in (different countries), and the
threat to the "Fundamental Right to Speech" due to the concept of
'Sub-Judice' and the contempt law in the forthcoming articles. This
week, let us recap the overall reaction to this verdict and more importantly
the reaction from Arundhati Roy.
Ms Roy mentioned that she stands by what she had said in her affidavit.
She exhorts the right thinking in the country not to consider the
sentence as a symbolic one. She says that the cause that she had been
fighting for in the Supreme Court is not just her alone and "it is
for India's Press to fight to patrol the boundaries of its freedom
which the law of Contempt, as it stands today, severely restricts
and threatens". She hopes that the fight against this archaic law
would be joined by all, who care for perfect and absolute democracy.
The judgement says that "more than half a century of Independence,
the Judiciary in the country is under constant threat and being endangered
form within and without". As Ms Roy rightly questioned "if this is
true, would the way to deal with it be to do some honest introspection
or to silence its critics by exercising the power of Contempt?" .........................To
Page 02
