[spectre] Re: SPECTRE digest, Vol 1 #196 - 2 msgs

[Julie]

Dear Lorenzo and Shuddhabrata:

This shocking case of injustice is similar to heavy-handed supression of
constitutional rights in many politically-charged cases in the United
States.

An international response might make a difference. Would someone familiar
with the case be willing to make a short summary that could be attached to
an email petition? Is there an email address at the court to which we could
send our protests?

Keep the Faith,
Julie Blankenship





At 6:26 AM +0100 2/15/02, spectre-request@mikrolisten.de wrote:
>Send SPECTRE mailing list submissions to
>	spectre@mikrolisten.de
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://post.openoffice.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	spectre-request@mikrolisten.de
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	spectre-admin@mikrolisten.de
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of SPECTRE digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Arundhati Roy and the Threat to Free Speech in India today
>(Shuddhabrata Sengupta)
>   2. Arundhati Roy (Lorenzo Taiuti)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha@sarai.net>
>Reply-To: shuddha@sarai.net
>Organization: Sarai : The New Media Initiative
>To: spectre@mikrolisten.de
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:32:48 +0530
>Subject: [spectre] Arundhati Roy and the Threat to Free Speech in India tod=
ay
>
>Dear Spectre Readers
>
>This is a posting forwarded to inform everybody on this list on the threats
>to free speech in India that is embodied in the charges brought against
>Arundhati Roy (Author of the 'God of Small Things', 'The Greater Common Goo=
d'
>and the 'End of Imagination' ) in the Supreme Court of India
>
>On March 6, 2002 the Supreme Court of India  will be delivering a judgement
>in the Criminal Contempt of Court case against Arundhati Roy. The maximum
>sentence for criminal contempt of court is six months imprisonment.
>
>The recepients can:
>* Disseminate the information widely. If they can write in media, that woul=
d
>be great. They can write articles, letter to editors, email messages, so on=
=2E
>* They can initiate discussions on related issues among their groups and
>through the internet.
>* They can join the dignified demonstration planned on March 6 to say
>that the demostrators would like to join Arundhati Roy in saying what she
>has said in her affidavits, particularly the paragraphs the Supreme Court
>has objected to.
>They can come just outside Indian Law Institute on Bhagwan Das Road outside
>the Supreme Court at 1030 am on March 6.
>______________________________________________________________
>On March 6th 2002
>Arundhati Roy & Criminal Contempt of the Supreme Court of India
>
>On 15th January 2002, Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice R.P. Sethi of the
>Supreme Court of India heard arguments in the contempt case against writer
>Arundhati Roy. As on every previous occasion when this particular case has
>come up for hearing, no visitors or journalists (other than officially
>accredited Court Correspondents) were allowed entry into the court. The
>Registrar said that he had =EBorders from above=ED in this case not to allo=
w
>entry to anyone. The issue was raised with the Bench, but they did not thin=
k
>it necessary to take any steps to rectify this serious breach of the
>fundamental principle of open courtrooms and public justice, and the case
>proceeded to the exclusion of any independent observers or journalists. Aft=
er
>a day long hearing, the court reserved judgement till 6th March 2002, and
>asked Roy to be present in Court on that day. The maximum sentence for
>criminal contempt of court is six months imprisonment.
>
>Since the hearings have been held virtually in-camera, comment and public
>opinion in the matter has been largely uninformed. This is an attempt to
>summarise and clarify the significant issues in the case.
>A distinction needs to be made first about two separate and quite distinct
>contempt charges that are being referred to with regard to Arundhati Roy.
>The first case for criminal contempt emerged out of the following events:
>On 18th October 2000 the Supreme Court delivered its final judgement in the
>Sardar Sarovar case, allowing construction to resume on the controversial d=
am
>on the Narmada River. The judgement itself created considerable controversy=
=2E
>Amongst its most vocal critics were Medha Patkar, leader of the Narmada
>Bachao Andolan (NBA), Prashant Bhushan, Counsel for the NBA, and the writer
>Arundhati Roy.
>On 13th December 2000 a few hundred people from the Narmada Valley staged a
>day long dharna (demonstration) outside the gates of the Supreme Court of
>India against the judgement in the Sardar Sarovar case. The dharna took pla=
ce
>in the presence of several senior police officials, hundreds of police
>constables, press and media, and local supporters of the NBA.  At dusk the
>demonstrators were peaceably arrested and removed by the Police.
>On 14th December 2000 five lawyers (led Jagdish Parashar & R.K.Virmani)
>attempted to file a First Information Report at the Tilak Marg Police Stati=
on
>alleging that Patkar, Roy, and Bhushan had led a demonstration outside the
>Supreme Court, shouted filthy slogans against the court, and had physically
>assaulted the petitioner lawyers and threatened to kill them. The police
>station did not see fit to register the case.
>In January 2001 the same lawyers filed a petition in the Supreme Court for
>criminal contempt of court against Patkar, Roy, and Bhushan. Their petition
>was entertained, and the Court issued notice to all three, asking them to
>personally appear before it. Patkar, Roy, and Bhushan responded with
>individual affidavits denying the charges, and saying that the accusations
>were so ludicrous that even the local police station had not entertained
>them. They also pointed out the fact that the petition did not meet any of
>the conditions required by the Contempt of Courts Act. (It was not supporte=
d
>by a proper affidavit, it was not signed by the Petitioners, it did not
>contain the addresses of the Petitioners or the respondents, and most
>crucially, did not have the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicito=
r
>General.)
>The judgement in this first case was delivered on 28th August 2001 by Justi=
ce
>G B Pattanaik & Justice Ruma Pal, who dismissed the contempt petition filed
>by Parashar et al., against Patkar, Roy, and Bhushan. They held that the
>petition was grossly defective and unsubstantiated and should have not even
>been accepted by the Registry of the Court. The Court observed that =ECalmo=
st
>every one of the Rules framed by the Court=EE had been violated and that th=
e
>petition was =ECshabbily drafted, procedurally grossly defective.=EE The co=
urt
>also observed that =ECapart from the defective nature of the petition, the
>unexplained reluctance on the part of the four petitioners to affirm an
>affidavit verifying the facts contained in the petition, the failure to eve=
n
>attempt to obtain the consent of the Solicitor General and most importantly=
,
>the refusal of the police station to record an FIR on the basis of the
>complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 1 are telling circumstances against
>the case in the petition.=EE The Court went on to say that the Registry oug=
ht
>not to have cleared the petition, and =ECHad our attention been drawn to th=
e
>procedural defects, we would have had no hesitation in rejecting the
>application in limini on this ground alone=EE.
>Extraordinarily enough, the matter did not end here.
>While accepting that the case filed by the 5 lawyers ought never to have be=
en
>entertained, Justice G B Pattanaik and Justice Ruma Pal went on to say that
>Arundhati Roy=EDs affidavit-in-reply contained at least three paragraphs th=
at
>were prima facie contemptuous. These were:
>         =ECOn the grounds that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy, =
the
>Chief
>Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the judicial
>enquiry into the Tehelka scandal, though it involves matters of national
>security and corruption in the highest places.
>         Yet when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiat=
ed
>petititon in which all the three respondents happen to be people, who have
>publicly =F1 though in markedly different ways =F1 questioned the policies=
 of the
>government and severely criticized a recent judgement of the Supreme Court,
>the Court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice.
>         It indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the Court to
>silence
>criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree
>with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local polic=
e
>station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own
>reputation and credibility considerable harm.=EE
>
>The Court held that in these three paragraphs =ECShe has imputed motives to
>specific courts for entertaining litigation or passing orders against her.
>She has accused Courts of `harassing=ED her (of which the present proceedin=
g
>has been cited as an instance) as if the judiciary were carrying out a
>personal vendetta against her. She has brought in matters which were not on=
ly
>not pertinent to the issues to be decided but has drawn uninformed
>comparisons to make statements about the court which do not appear to be
>protected by the law relating to fair criticism=EE.
>
>On 5th September 2001 a fresh contempt notice was issued to Arundhati Roy.
> In her reply to this notice, Roy pointed out the circumstances in which sh=
e
>said what she did in her affidavit. She pointed out that the absurd and
>grossly defective nature of the first contempt petition against her had bee=
n
>acknowledged by the Court itself. For a common citizen like her there is no
>distinction between the court and its registry. She found it very strange
>that though the judges of the Supreme Court were obviously very busy, they
>still found time to entertain such a petition. She goes on to say that, in
>the circumstances, =ECit seemed perfectly appropriate to air my view that i=
n
>this particular instance, the court, by allowing certain citizens to grossl=
y
>abuse its process in this way, creates a disturbing impression that there i=
s
>an inclination on the part of the Court to silence criticism and muzzle
>dissent. This does not, and was not meant to impute motives to any particul=
ar
>judges. It does not, nor was not meant to undermine the dignity of the cour=
t.
>I was simply stating an honest impression that had formed in my mind.=EE
>She said that her impression would have been corrected if the Court had don=
e
>any or all of the following things:
>=ECa) Dismissed the petition without issuing notice.
>  b) Ordered an inquiry into the functioning of the Registry to establish h=
ow
>such a =EBprocedural lapse=ED could have taken place.
>  c) Taken action against the Petitioners for filing a false case and
>deliberately attempting to mislead the Court.=EE
>Instead, she points out, no members of the public were allowed to enter the
>court in every hearing of the petition. Moreover, the Court took no action
>against the petitioner, R.K. Virmani, who stood up and shouted without any
>justification that he had lost confidence in the judges hearing the matter
>and that it should be transferred to another bench.
>She drew attention to the contempt of court case against the former Law
>Minister Shiv Shankar who had, in a public speech, accused judges of having
>an =ECunconcealed sympathy for the haves=EE and who went on to say that =EC=
Anti
>social elements ie. FERA violators, bride burners and whole hordes or
>reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court=EE He was however=
 not
>held guilty of contempt and the Supreme Court held that though unfortunate,
>these were his views and he was entitled to air them.
>
>Roy concluded by saying:
>=ECWhimsical interpretations of the same law leave citizens at the mercy of
>individual judges. If the 3 paragraphs of my affidavit dated 16/4/01 are
>deemed to be a criminal offence, it will have the chilling effect of gaggin=
g
>the Press and preventing it from reporting on and analyzing matters that
>vitally concern the lives of millions of Indian citizens. This will be an
>unfortunate blow to one of the most responsible, robust institutions of
>Indian democracy. =D6The prospect of having to undergo a lengthy and exorbi=
tant
>process of litigation, and the threat of an eventual prison sentence, will
>effectively restrain the press from writing about or analyzing the actions =
of
>the judiciary. It will render the judiciary accountable to no one but itsel=
f.
>As I have stated in my affidavit dated 16/4/01, if the judiciary removes
>itself from public scrutiny and accountability, and severs its links with t=
he
>society that it was set up to serve in the first place, it will mean that
>another pillar of Indian democracy will eventually crumble=EE.
>
>On 15th January, 2002 the second Contempt petition came up for final hearin=
g
>before a bench of Justice Pattanaik and Justice Sethi. Appearing for Roy, M=
r.
>Shanti Bhushan moved an application on her behalf asking Justice Pattanaik =
to
>recuse himself from the proceedings and transfer this case to some other
>court, on the ground that since the allegation against Roy was that she had
>attributed motives to him (he being the judge who had issued notice in the
>first contempt petition), she had a reasonable apprehension of bias on his
>part. Her application said that in hearing and deciding this contempt
>petition, Justice Pattanaik would be sitting as a judge in his own cause.Th=
e
>Court however did not take kindly to this application. Justice Pattanaik sa=
id
>that this should have been raised earlier, and remarked that raising this
>objection was malafide.
>Mr. Shanti Bhushan argued that Freedom of Speech was paramount under the
>Indian Constitution and could only be subjected to =EBreasonable=ED restric=
tions
>for contempt of Court. It was universally accepted that the Courts and thei=
r
>judgements could be criticised in the most trenchant terms. Moreover what R=
oy
>had said was in reply to a court notice (unlike Shiv Shankar who gave a
>public speech). Voicing one=EDs perception in an affidavit in Court surely
>cannot be said to be contempt he submitted.
>Additional Solicitor General Altaf Ahmed, who appeared as amicus (friend of
>the Court) submitted that the Freedom of Speech was subject to the law of
>contempt. He said that Roy=EDs affidavit contained a blatant imputation of =
a
>motive on the court and was therefore destructive of the independence of th=
e
>judiciary. He said that in the past people who had "erred" had tendered
>unconditional apologies which the court had accepted magnanimously. However=
,
>Roy he said, had been defiant, her current affidavit did not contain a hint
>of apology or remorse, and she had instead delivered a gratuitous lecture t=
o
>the court. He argued that even after the Shiv Shankar case there had been
>many instances in which the Court had sentenced persons for imputing motive=
s
>or otherwise scandalising the court.
>
>Once again, a distressing sidelight of the proceedings was the gross and
>obnoxious behaviour in Court of R.K.Virmani, one of the lawyers who had fil=
ed
>the original contempt petition. He began by shouting in Court, insisting th=
at
>he be allowed to intervene in these proceedings. Later he sat in the second
>row of the court and continued to pass loud and lewd comments about Shanti
>Bhushan, Altaf Ahmed and Roy. All this was being done very much within the
>hearing and notice of the court. However again no action was taken against
>him.
>This case and the manner in which it has been conducted raises a number of
>important issues:
>1)Are Indian citizens barred from commenting adversely on the court and
>expressing their perceptions of the motivation of the court even if such
>comments are bonafide or justified? How can such a situation be countenance=
d
>in a democracy where the right of free speech is a fundamental right and
>every institution is subject to public scrutiny and criticism?
>2)Is the judiciary completely unaccountable? Can it arbitrarily declare all
>criticism of it to be contempt of court, and then punish the critics by
>sitting as judges in their own cause?
>3)Can the Court bar the press and members of the public from the hearing of=
 a
>particular case without assigning good reason?
>4)
>On March 6th 2002 in the Supreme Court of India, Contempt Petition (CRL) No=
=2E
>10 of 2001, a verdict will be delivered by a Judge sitting in his own cause=
,
>after a series of hearings sealed from public scrutiny. On display will be
>one of the ways in which the world=EDs largest democracy humiliates its
>critics.
>
>Anurag Singh
>Himanshu Thakkar
>Jharana Jhaveri
>Prashant Bhushan
>Sanjay Kak
>
>For more information and copies of the court documents contact
>janmadhyam@vsnl.com
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>From: "Lorenzo Taiuti" <md3169@mclink.it>
>To: <spectre@mikrolisten.de>
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:09:38 +0100
>Subject: [spectre] Arundhati Roy
>
>Messaggio in formato MIME composto da piy parti.
>
>------=3D_NextPart_000_0028_01C1B5B5.0EBF2340
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>To all Spectres:
>Is there anything we can do for Arundhati Roy?
>Waiting for ideas
>Lorenzo Taiuti
>
>------=3D_NextPart_000_0028_01C1B5B5.0EBF2340
>Content-Type: text/html;
>	charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D
>charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3D3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>
><DIV><STRONG>To all Spectres:</STRONG></DIV>
><DIV><STRONG>Is there anything we can do for Arundhati =3D
>Roy?</STRONG></DIV>
><DIV><STRONG>Waiting for ideas</STRONG></DIV>
><DIV><STRONG>Lorenzo Taiuti</STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>------=3D_NextPart_000_0028_01C1B5B5.0EBF2340--
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>SPECTRE mailing list
>SPECTRE@mikrolisten.de
>http://post.openoffice.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
>
>
>End of SPECTRE Digest