The court's action came after the Booker Prize winner's refusal to retract from her earlier "contemptuous" statements in the affidavit she had filed after being served notice for contempt on a petition by a group of lawyers.

Pronouncing the verdict today, a bench comprising Justice GB Pattanaik and Justice Ruma Pal said: "She (Roy) has imputed motives to specific courts for entertaining litigation or passing orders against her. She has accused courts of harassing her (of which the present proceedings have been cited as an instance) as if the judiciary were carrying out a personal vendetta against her."

The bench, however, let off Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar, giving her benefit of doubt. It noted that the remarks in her affidavit were general in nature.

"No personal motive has been ascribed by respondent no 2 (Patkar) to any particular judge," the bench said.

But the court issued notice to Roy in view of her "derogatory" statements in three paragraphs forming part of her affidavit. It said: "There can be no doubt that the filing of an affidavit is publication within the definition of criminal contempt. An affidavit is not a secret document."

Addressing the court in person on August 2, Roy had dared the bench to proceed against her if her remarks were contemptuous. "We are conscious that she has said before us that she stood by the comments made even if they were held to be contumacious," Justice Pal said.

However, the court dropped proceedings against Roy, Patkar and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on the allegations (made by the petitioners) that they had shouted abusive slogans against the court while protesting against its judgement allowing construction of the Narmada Dam. "The allegations of shouting of abusive slogans cannot be accepted merely on the basis of this petition," the bench said.

In the judgement today, the court noted that prima facie, Roy had committed contempt by attributing motive to the Court: "She has drawn uninformed comparisons to make statements about this court which do not appear to be protected by the law relating to fair criticism."