Citation: (2002) 3 SCC 343 | Date of Decision: 06-03-2002
Case No.: Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Cri.) No. 10 of 2001
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=277227
Law Points Raised:
- Scope and limits of Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of speech and expression – in the context of contempt of court.
- Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 129 and Article 215 to punish for contempt.
- Whether criticism of judiciary can amount to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Balance between public dissent and protection of judicial integrity.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that freedom of speech, though fundamental, is subject to reasonable restrictions. When public statements or actions scandalize the court or erode its dignity, the court is empowered to act under its contempt jurisdiction. The power of contempt is not personal to judges but exists to protect the administration of justice.
Final Ruling:
Arundhati Roy was found guilty of contempt of court for her statements and conduct outside the Supreme Court. While the Court recognized the importance of free speech, it emphasized that such freedom does not extend to undermining the dignity of the judiciary. A symbolic punishment was imposed to affirm the authority of the institution.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
- 1–3: Constitutional foundation of rule of law and judiciary’s role.
- 4–6: Background of the Narmada controversy and earlier contempt concerns.
- 7–8: Incident leading to current contempt proceedings.
- 9–10: Justification for invoking contempt powers and the judgment’s rationale.