Professional ethicsContempt of courtSupreme Court of India

In Re: Arundhati Roy

(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 34320021 min read
The case in brief30-second read
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
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.
Principle
Criminal contempt can lie against any person (not just advocates) for scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court; public figures must exercise restraint.
Cite this

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.

Cite this

Citation

In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 343

Reported: (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 343. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.