March 11, 2002	Monday	Zilhaj 26, 1422

NEW DELHI: In an episode unprecedented in its history, the Supreme Court was rebuffed by the Booker Prize winning novelist Arundhati Roy who reiterated her criticism for its insensitive approach to questions agitating the weak and the dispossessed.

Ms Roy was talking to newsmen after her release from prison. She was imprisoned for a day for criticizing the court’s verdict upholding that the government’s decision to go ahead with its plans to heighten the level of the dam on the Narmada River.

There has been a movement against the construction of the dam itself by a large number of tribals and landless peasants who have been agitating it on the ground that they had been dispossessed by bringing their holdings under the waters impounded by the dam.

Roy and leaders of the movement lead by Medha Patkar had been sentenced by the court for contempt.

In its judgment, the two member bench said, “no citizen, however, mighty or powerful or popular can escape the contempt laws if he or she lowers the dignity of the court or scandalizes the office.”

The sentence awarded included a token imprisonment of a day, a fine of Rs 2,000 or if she (Roy) did not pay, a further imprisonment of three months in prison.

Commenting on the judgment, Roy said, “I stand by what I said and am prepared to face the consequences. The dignity of the court will be upheld by the quality of judgment and that would be judged by the people of the country. The message is clear that any citizen who dares to criticize the court does so at his or her own peril.”

A large number of her supporters led by Ms Medha Patkar spent the night outside the prison and later tied ‘rakhis’ around her forearm.

Addressing a meeting, Ms Roy said, “I stand by what I had said in my affidavit and I have served the sentence which the Supreme Court imposed on me. I spent the night in prison, trying to decide whether to pay the fine or serve out a three month sentence, instead. Paying the fine does not in any way mean that I have apologized or any way accepted the judgment. I decided that paying the fine was the correct thing to do because I have made the point that I was trying to make.”

To a question, Ms Roy maintained that she accepted the authority of the court in as much as she filed an affidavit. She added, “I am not trying to thrash it as an institution. For an individual to argue against the court does not mean that she is undermining the whole institution. On the contrary it means that she has a stake in this society and cares about the role and efficacy of that institution.”