Contempt Case Adjourned till August 7
Medha, Arundhati assert rights of people and right to criticise the court
Supreme Court today (23.4.2001) adjourned the case against Prashant
Bhushan, Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy in the Contempt of Court issue, for
August 7th. A divisional bench comprising of Jst.G.B.Patnaik and
Jst.J.U.Banerjee didn't hear any arguments of all three, representing
activism at three fronts mass movements, judicial and literary, who were
ready to present their case and reply to the petitioners' accusations and
claims through eminent lawyers, Shri.Shanti Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani, the
two former Law Ministers of India. Arundhati Roy filed her affidavit in person.
In the morning the respondents, along with over 300 representatives from
the Narmada Valley and organisations from different parts of the country
marched from the Mandi House towards the Supreme Court in the morning. The
people were stopped by the police a little before the Court and the people
sat there on dharna till late afternoon till Arundhati, Medha and others
returned from the Court.
It is obvious from the three affidavits
(
quotes annexed) that the so-called
accused didnot see any reason to apologise. The charges in the
(
FIR (annexed),
which was not registered by the sensible police officials, are
utterly false and concocted, to say the least. The court has done the
greatest mistake in admitting the case, which is baseless. Mass-protest at
the Supreme Court on 13th December is also seen as a duty of the three
activists committed t life and people's power beyond law and the system.
They rather preferred to uphold their action of critiquing the Apex Court's
judgment on Sardar Sarovar Project that denied the right to life and
livelihood to the thousands of tribal an peasant families in the Narmada
Valley as well as 'victims of development' and eulogised large dams without
a rational, scientific evidence. The judgment that they appealed the court
to review, they believe has to be challenged by every citizen with faith in
the Constitutional values and judiciary's role and responsibility towards
the downtrodden.
Contempt as a charge retained in the 22nd century, by the proponents of
open societies, is necessarily an expression of fear that the judiciary
would lose its dignity and authority both, needs to be questioned. The
freedom of expression, guaranteed under the Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution provides the space, the three activists believe, to analyse
and criticise any judgment that is seen as unjust and unconstitutional. The
issues raised by NBA and the supporters related to Sardar Sarovar Project
and other big dams include the one of the democratic rights and hence can't
be distinguished form the broader challenge and appeal to the judiciary to
revoke the judgment and ensure justice.
Flouting all rights of the common citizen, the Court authorities today
denied permission to eminent people and friends of NBA, to enter the
visitor's gallery of the Court. Due to the "orders from top" (as the clerk
put it) Veteran social worker Swami Agnivesh, Magsaysay Award winner Aruna
Roy, senior socialist leader Surendra Mohan, former Commissioner of
Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes Dr.B.D.Sharma, noted feminist Devaki
Jain, film personality Pradip Kishan and others had to stand outside the
Court room and some even at the gates. They expressed shock and anger in
such undemocratic and insulting behavior of the Court.
It is in the context of a number of blows experienced by the people's
organisations such as the victims of the Bhopal Gas tragedy and
Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha. What was faced by the small industries in Delhi
at the hands of the Court through a judgment callous of the impact is one
while the punishment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to the human
activist and journalists criticising the court's acquittal of the accused
in the Niyogi murder case is another face of the same judiciary.
It's against such non judicial actions committing contempt of common people
that the activists are committed to fight and fight through non-violent,
democratic means.
The struggle to save Narmada, its people and nature, will continue to be
fought at many fronts from the field to the fori of justice.
Joe Athialy
Annexures:
|
