In Re: Arundhati Roy

Facts

• Author Arundhati Roy made statements outside court criticizing the Supreme Court's handling of the Narmada dam case, alleging the court had sided with powerful interests. The Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings.

Issue

1. Whether public criticism of the Supreme Court's judicial decisions, made outside court proceedings, constitutes criminal contempt.

Held

• The Court convicted Roy of criminal contempt, holding that her statements tended to scandalize the court and lower its authority in the eyes of the public. However, the sentence was symbolic (one day's imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000), recognizing the tension between free speech and contempt jurisdiction. The Court noted that criticism of reasoning is permissible but attributing motives crosses the line.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court convicted Roy of criminal contempt, holding that her statements tended to scandalize the court and lower its authority in the eyes of the public. However, the sentence was symbolic (one day's imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000), recognizing the tension between free speech and contempt jurisdiction. The Court noted that criticism of reasoning is permissible but attributing motives crosses the line.