In defence of dissent: Arundhati Roy

Roy challenges the Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) order to launch criminal proceedings against her, in the Supreme Court. SC issues notice but directs her to appear before the High Court on January 25 

Image Courtesy: K. Pichumani, The Hindu

The order of the Bombay High Court directing criminal contempt proceedings against me is untenable legally besides raising crucial questions of the right to freedom of expression in a democracy, says Arundhati Roy in her appeal; SC issues notice to Bombay High Court and the Maharashtra government on Friday (January 22) but directs Roy to appear before the Court on January 25, 2016

Published on: January 23, 2016

Noted writer Arundhati Roy has challenged the order of the Napur bench of the Bombay High Court dated December 23, 2015 directing criminal defamation proceedings to be filed against her[1]. The special leave petition was filed on January 7, 2016 in the Supreme Court of India.
 
Roy has challenged the High Court’s Order on grounds that it is not tenable in the eyes of the law and in fact militates against the law laid down by Constitutional Courts from time to time. Besides, it raises crucial questions of freedom of expression and the right to criticise governments and state institutions in a democracy.
 
The judgement directing Roy to be proceeded against through criminal contempt proceedings was based on an article that she wrote for Outlook magazine on May 9, 2015. In response, her special leave petition states that “ a reading of the contents of the article authored by the petitioner (Roy) on the basis of which criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated, would reveal that she was only bringing forth the plight of a person who is ninety per cent disabled, wheelchair bound and suffers from a degenerative medical condition that requires constant medical care.”
 
The special leave petition of Arundhati Roy argues that there are three crucial aspects which show that the Bombay High Court has erred in law. These  are:

1. That no application for bail was pending when the petitioner (Roy) had written her article. The court itself had noted that the previous proceeding that resulted in the dismissal of the bail application moved by Dr. Saibaba, had come to an end on August 25, 2014. The article authored by the petitioner was published by Outlook magazine on May 9, 2015, a full seven months later. Therefore, there is no basis to hold that the petitioner had a “malafide motive”or a “game plan” to “interfere in the administration of justice.”
2. That Roy’s article was a bonafide exercise of her Freedom of Expression. Arundhati Roy has stated in her petition, that “For the sake of argument let’s leave the decision about whether Dr Saibaba is guilty or innocent of the charges levelled against him to the courts. And for the moment let’s turn our attention solely to the question of bail—because for him that is quite literally a matter of life and death.”  Roy believed that the question of Dr. Saibaba’s liberty in the given circumstances, was quite literally a question of life and death due to his worsening medical condition, and therefore it was of urgent and utmost importance that he be granted bail.

The same Court that is the Bombay High Court (that had cancelled Professor Saibaba’s interim bail on December 23, 2015), had, on June 26, 2015 (in Criminal PIL No 4/2015) stated quite the contrary to what was held in the December 2015 order. The Court had earlier said, “We are satisfied that if Professor Saibaba is not released on temporary bail for medical treatment and supportive care as indicated above, there could be a risk to his life and health.” At that stage, the High court at Bombay had held that the medical condition of Dr. Saibaba required immediate medical attention, and hence he was entitled to be released on temporary bail.                         See more