Home  
  Ulagam  
    ? Rajan Darbar
    ? Religion
    ? Sitharal
    ? Viewpoint
  Kondattam  
  Arangam  
  Nandhavanam        
  Vanavil  
  Anjaraipetti
 
 

Contempt of Court Law- Path to Judicial tyranny?

page 1 2


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


Naangal Vimarsanam   © 2001 www.nilacharal.com. All rights reserved.