Opinion

The contempt notice against Arundhati Roy is yet another reminder of why this law must go

Even if one disagrees with Roy, the order of the Bombay High Court highlights the dangers to freedom of speech in the country.

The order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court cancelling Professor GN Saibaba’s bail on medical grounds and issuing contempt notice to author Arundhati Roy for her article “Professor, POW” in Outlook magazine is an excellent illustration of all that’s wrong with criminal contempt punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and why it’s an affront to freedom of speech protected under the Constitution.

If one reads the order of Justice AB Chaudhari, it seems almost as if the bail has been denied to Prof Saibaba because of the article written by Ms Roy rather than the law or the merits of Prof Saibaba’s bail application. Indeed the most serious allegation against Prof Saibaba is described thus:
“the applicant who is an intellectual has used his intelligentsia [sic] for anti   national activities for which there is strong evidence against him as discussed.”

(If any reader can coherently parse that sentence and point to any laws or legal principles which justify the denial of bail on that basis, I would be most grateful since I have not been able to make sense of it.)

While discussing the grounds on which to deny bail to Saibaba, the Court spends a few pages extracting parts of Roy’s article and then goes into a completely tangential discussion of the contumacious nature of the article.  The order reads less like a dispassionate judicial order and more like the response of someone insecure and aggrieved by criticism. Of the several pieces of writing that were published across the country criticising the refusal to grant bail to Saibaba, why only Roy’s has been selected for special scrutiny by the Court, and on what basis is also not clear. What Roy has said in the piece about Saibaba’s pre-trial detention is no different, except in language and in severity, from what has been said by commentators in multiple pieces such as here and here.

Pure discretion

This is precisely the problem with criminal contempt laws in India as they stand. They are less a shield to defend the judicial institutions of the land, and more a weapon to harass and intimidate critics of court action. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, apart from seeking to punish those who disobey court orders or obstruct judicial proceedings, also seeks to punish those “scandalising” or “lowering the authority of the court”. While the first two categories of contempt (disobedience and obstruction) are fairly obvious and can be determined factually, it’s hard to see how the latter category is anything but pure discretion unrestricted by law.

The defences against a charge of criminal contempt are few and even truth is not an unqualified defence against a charge of criminal contempt. The truth is a defence to criminal contempt charges only if the Court is satisfied that the statement is in public interest and that statement has been made bona fide. A recent Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court affirmed this position of law contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court will itself determine what the public interest in the statement is, and whether the person making such statement was acting in good faith. Therefore, the answer to the question “When does justifiable criticism cross into ‘scandalising’ or ‘lowering the authority of the court’?” is not a clearly articulated principle but a worrying “it depends”.

Alleging that a judge took the hospitality of certain organisations is not considered contempt of court but harshly criticising the judgment of a court in appeal is contempt of court. Demanding that judges adopt a code of ethics is not considered contempt but accusing them of harbouring a “classist bias” would amount to contempt of court. No two statements are obviously the same, but going through the case law, it is difficult to cull out any obvious principles or bright lines which should not be crossed in order to be guilty of contempt. Indeed the effect is to force critics to self-censor and restrain their thoughts for fear of facing criminal contempt.

Anachronistic provision

The net effect of the law of criminal contempt is that the Court is now the sole arbiter of what sort of criticism of itself is acceptable and what is not. It is (no pun intended) a judge in its own cause. Were the Government or a private citizen to claim such sole right to determine whether or not criticism of one’s actions is justified or not, such a claim would be denounced as being tyrannical or delusional. Yet, courts in India repeatedly assumed this power with little accountability as to its use.

No doubt the Constitution of India allows Parliament to make laws on “contempt of court” as a reasonable restriction to the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 vesting such unbridled power on the court to punish for contempt, that too when court itself is the arbiter of what’s contempt and what’s not, is hardly a “reasonable restriction” that is necessary in the interests of administration of justice.

Whether or not one agrees with Roy or believes GN Saibaba deserves bail, the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prof GN Saibaba’s case highlights the dangers to freedom of speech in the country posed by a law giving unrestricted powers to judges to punish for contempt. It is time for courts to understand that respect for the judiciary and its authority can’t be inculcated under the threat of contempt proceedings. It is perhaps also time for the legislature to consider removing this anachronistic provision in law from the books.

Alok Prasanna Kumar is Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BULLETIN BY 

The incredible engineering that can save your life in a car crash

Indian roads are among the world’s most dangerous. We take a look at the essential car safety features for our road conditions.

Over 200,000 people die on India’s roads every year. While many of these accidents can be prevented by following road safety rules, car manufacturers are also devising innovative new technology to make vehicles safer than ever before. To understand how crucial this technology is to your safety, it’s important to understand the anatomy of a car accident.

Source: Global report on road safety, 2015 by WHO.
Source: Global report on road safety, 2015 by WHO.

A car crash typically has three stages. The first stage is where the car collides with an object. At the point of collision, the velocity with which the car is travelling gets absorbed within the car, which brings it to a halt. Car manufacturers have incorporated many advanced features in their cars to prevent their occupants from ever encountering this stage.

Sixth sense on wheels

To begin with, some state-of-the-art vehicles have fatigue detection systems that evaluate steering wheel movements along with other signals in the vehicle to indicate possible driver fatigue–one of the biggest causes of accidents. The Electronic Stability Program (ESP) is the other big innovation that can prevent collisions. ESP typically encompasses two safety systems–ABS (anti-lock braking system), and TCS (traction control system). Both work in tandem to help the driver control the car on tricky surfaces and in near-collision situations. ABS prevents wheels from locking during an emergency stop or on a slippery surface, and TCS prevents the wheels from spinning when accelerating by constantly monitoring the speed of the wheels.

Smarter bodies, safer passengers

In the event of an actual car crash, manufacturers have been redesigning the car body to offer optimal protection to passengers. A key element of newer car designs includes better crumple zones. These are regions which deform and absorb the impact of the crash before it reaches the occupants. Crumple zones are located in the front and rear of vehicles and some car manufacturers have also incorporated side impact bars that increase the stiffness of the doors and provide tougher resistance to crashes.

CRUMPLE ZONES: Invented in the 1950s, crumple zones are softer vehicle sections that surround a safety cell that houses passengers. In a crash, these zones deform and crumple to absorb the shock of the impact. In the visual, the safety cell is depicted in red, while the crumple zones of the car surround the safety cell.
CRUMPLE ZONES: Invented in the 1950s, crumple zones are softer vehicle sections that surround a safety cell that houses passengers. In a crash, these zones deform and crumple to absorb the shock of the impact. In the visual, the safety cell is depicted in red, while the crumple zones of the car surround the safety cell.

Post-collision technology

While engineers try to mitigate the effects of a crash in the first stage itself, there are also safe guards for the second stage, when after a collision the passengers are in danger of hitting the interiors of the car as it rapidly comes to a halt. The most effective of these post-crash safety engineering solutions is the seat belt that can reduce the risk of death by 50%.

In the third stage of an actual crash, the rapid deceleration and shock caused by the colliding vehicle can cause internal organ damage. Manufacturers have created airbags to reduce this risk. Airbags are installed in the front of the car and have crash sensors that activate and inflate it within 40 milliseconds. Many cars also have airbags integrated in the sides of the vehicles to protect from side impacts.

SEATBELTS: Wearing seatbelts first became mandatory in Victoria, Australia in 1970, and is now common across the world. Modern seatbelts absorb impact more efficiently, and are equipped with ‘pre-tensioners’ that pull the belt tight to prevent the passenger from jerking forward in a crash.
SEATBELTS: Wearing seatbelts first became mandatory in Victoria, Australia in 1970, and is now common across the world. Modern seatbelts absorb impact more efficiently, and are equipped with ‘pre-tensioners’ that pull the belt tight to prevent the passenger from jerking forward in a crash.

Safety first

In the West as well as in emerging markets like China, car accident related fatalities are much lower than in India. Following traffic rules and driving while fully alert remain the biggest insurance against mishaps, however it is also worthwhile to fully understand the new technologies that afford additional safety.

So the next time you’re out looking for a car, it may be a wise choice to pick an extra airbag over custom leather seats or a swanky music system. It may just save your life.

Equipped with state-of-the-art passenger protection systems like ESP and fatigue detection systems, along with high-quality airbags and seatbelts, all Volkswagen cars have the safety of passengers at the heart of their design. Watch Volkswagen customer stories and driver experiences that testify its superior German engineering, here.

Play

This article was produced on behalf of Volkswagen by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.

×

PrevNext