Scribd
Upload
68 views12 pages

Contempt Court PPT Presenataion

professional ethics presentation

Uploaded by

sanglibiker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views12 pages

Contempt Court PPT Presenataion

professional ethics presentation

Uploaded by

sanglibiker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

Re:- Arundhuti Roy Case AIR 2002, SC 1375

Petitioner- Arundhati Roy

The Constitution of India.


Contempt of Court Act Cases
Referred: Re: Vinay Chandra
Mishra AIR 1995 SC 2348 Re:
Harijai Singh & Anr. 1996 (6) SCC
466
Facts of the Case:

 1. This case is a Suo-moto contempt petition which is initiated by the court itself against the
respondent, named Arundhati roy, a prize winning author. During the period of writ petition of
narmada bachao andolan, the court issued some environmental damages and have also
suggested for the displacement of the communities that were living nearby due to the
development activities of the dam or the reservoir on the river narmada.
 2. According to the order of the supreme court, the height of the dam should be increased, but
the respondant criticized this decision of the court and subsequently started a protest in front of
the fates of the supreme court by the andolan members and the respondant herself.
 3. This was led on the basis of the complaint filed by the police. But during the proceedings, all
the respondant denied all the allegations regarding the inappropriate banners and slogans. And
then with denial, the respondants were also criticized the court for the proceedings. Arundhati roy
has also said that, the judges were so busy, and with that the chief justice of our country has also
refused to allow a sitting judge to head the judicial enquiry into the tehelka scandal instead that
the matter involves national security and corruption in the highest places. Yet they have also
questioned the policies of the government and severely criticized the recent judgement of the
supreme court, after all this infact the local has also not reacted to this matter. According to
arundhati’s
statement, supreme court was doing all this to save their own reputation
and credibility to considerable harm.

4. On the basis of the above allegations, the suo-moto proceedings were


initiated against the respondent for questioning or imputing the motives of
the court.

5. Then in her reply affidavit, she stressed on her continuous dissent


against the decision of the court. Then she believed that this matter is not
only about the court’s judgement, its about her right to express her
opinions as a citizens as well as a writer also. As a writer, she believes that
it is a responsibility for her to raise voice against these cases and claim for
justice.
Issue Raised:

 1. In this case, the issue was about the court’s decision, that the height
of the reservoir dam should be increased and for a time being, due to
the development purposes.

 2. The nearby residences should moved from there which was not
acceptable by the respondant and claimed that this decision was not
appropriate and can make those families homeless and was also seeking
claim for the right to express one’s personal opinions that is freedom of
speech. Secondly, she also questioned the judiciary for their
malfunctioned system and also alleged that the top most personnels
were corrupted and not doing their job properly.
 3. Secondly, she also questioned the judiciary for their malfunctioned
system and also alleged that the top most personnels were corrupted
and not doing their job properly.

 4. Thirdly, seeking right to personal opinion does not mean that the
respondant or any party have the right to condemn the judicial system
or the decisions by the judiciary
Parties Contentions:

 COURT
 1. The court has stated all the allegations false, with that they has also
said that the banners and the slogans were inappropriate for the masses
and this will lead to the misrepresentation in front of the masses.

 2. Secondly, conducting the protests in the way that it was held by the
respondants was totally a wrongful conduct and illegal approach in its
nature.

 3. Thirdly, every individual should follow the basic integrity to maintain


social relation and dignity of the apex court.
 Respondent:

 Arundhati Roy:
 the respondant who is also an award winning author stated that she should
be free to express her opinion under right to express an individual’s opinion
or we can say that freedom of expression.

 Secondly, the decision passed by the apex court was inappropriate because
in the name of development, the nearby residences were ordered to replace
from that area, which will affect those poor families.

 Judgement

 The court stated that freedom of speech and expression does guaranteed by
the constitution of India but they are followed with some reasonable
restrictions that were imposed by law, which majorly includes that the basic
dignity and integrity of the court and judiciary should be maintained.
 Then the respondent’s argument was considered as irrelevant and the issue
was arised that whether truth could be pleaded as defense to contempt or
not.

 As the reply affidavit was the main contemptuous part of the whole matter
as it contains the most wild allegations against the court and the whole
judiciary system.

 So the court considered that the whole affidavit will not be considered for
contempt accept the allegating part of the affidavit as the allegations were
questioning the integrity of the court and was also harming the reputation
of the apex court and it’s judgement.

 As according to the court, the criticism of the court or lowering the


reputation of the court will not be acceptable by the system. And if any
individual does so, being having the knowledge that the comments made
were irrelevant, in that case the individual is responsible for the honour
harm of the reowned institution.
Rule of Law:

 The basic rule of law that was


applied here was that the contempt
of court was not be admissible by
the apex court if somebody
dishonour the integrity of the apex
court.
Conclusion:

 To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate
decision as downgrading the reputation of an apex court is not
considered as lawful activity and will not be act as a defense in the court
of law.

 Whether an individual has personal rights but every personal right


comes with some reasonable restriction that were mandotarily imposed
by law. Hence, the respondent has made misstatements which leads to
degrading the dignity and integrity of the court and the judiciary

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy