NOTICE     TO     A     PERSON     CHARGED     WITH     CONTEMPT     OF   COURT

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 

 

IN  RE:                       Ms. Arundhati Roy, D/o Mary Roy,

R/o 2-A Kautilya Marg, New Delhi – 110021

 

CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL) NO. 10 OF 2001

 

(Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings under Rule 3(a) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court 1975 initiated on the basis of Affidavit dated 16.4.2001 filed on 17.4.2001 in Contempt Petition (Crl) No.  2/2001 titled J.R. Parashar and Others Versus Prasant Bhushan and Others.)

 

To

 

Ms. Arundhati Roy,

D/o Mary Roy,

R/o 2-A Kautilya Marg,

New Delhi – 110021.                     . . . (Alleged Contemnor)

 

 

                                    Whereas a Contempt Proceeding bearing Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2/2001 had been instituted in this court on the basis of allegations made against you along with others and Notices had been issued thereunder to all the contemnors therein to file show-cause.

 

                                    AND whereas you had filed your Show-cause, denying the allegations made against you and in view of such denial, the Court did not think it appropriate to direct any further inquiry into the matter and ultimately, to drop the said Contempt Proceeding.

 

                                    And Whereas the aforesaid Show-cause filed by you in the said Contempt Petition contained scandalous and contumacious statements, more particularly, the following passages in the aforesaid show-cause.

 

   On 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, even though it involves matters of national security and corruption in the highest places.

 

Yet, when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated petition in which all the three respondents happen to be people who have publicly – though in markedly different ways – 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 police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm.”

 

 

                                    And Whereas the Court, therefore, came to the prima facie conclusion that your aforesaid imputed motives are grossly contemptuous, and the court therefore directed that you should be proceeded against for contempt, as would appear from the judgement of this Court, copy whereof is appended hereto.

 

                                     And Whereas the aforesaid assertions of yours in your Show-cause filed, amount to Criminal Contempt of the Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

 

                                     And Whereas your attendance is necessary to show cause why you should not be suitably dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Court’s Act as well as the Constitution.

 

                                      You are hereby required to appear in person before this Court at New Delhi on the 29th day of October, 2001 at 10.30 O’ Clock in the forenoon.

 

                           You shall attend the Court in person on the 29th day of October, 2001 and shall continue to attend the Court on all days thereafter to which the case against you stands adjourned and until final orders are passed on the charge against you.

 

HEREIN FAIL NOT.

 

Dated this the 5th day of September, 2001

 

 

                                                                                    REGISTRAR (J-I)