The author, not for the first time, faces the ire of the Indian judiciary. AB Chaudhari J. of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Arundhati Roy for an article she wrote in May this year..The decision to initiate criminal contempt (Indian Express) came while hearing the bail application of Dr. GN Saibaba, a lecturer at Ramlal Anand College in Delhi, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in May last year. The UAPA is a legislation that has faced criticism. Arun Ferreira, who was arrested under the UAPA described it as one that criminalises thoughts..Following his abduction in May, (the Maharashtra police say he was arrested in Delhi while on his way home), Saibaba was incarcerated in the “anda” cell of the Nagpur Central Jail..Since then, the professor, who is paralysed from waist down, has seen a rapid deterioration of health..In June this year, the Bombay High Court granted temporary bail while hearing a suo motu PIL after activists wrote to the then Chief Justice, Mohit Shah. In September, a Division Bench extended the temporary bail on medical grounds till December 31, 2015. The petition was dismissed, with directions that the Nagpur Bench be approached for regular bail..Which is how the matter came up before AB Chaudhari J..While holding that there was no reason to grant bail, the judge also took note of an article Roy had written in Outlook magazine published on May 12 this year..In her article, Roy had argued that the arrest of the “wheel-chair bound” English lecturer was due to Saibaba’s mobilisation of an “entirely un-secret campaign” against Operation Green Hunt, a massive State offensive in central India..Towards the end of her article, Roy provides examples of “well-known public figures” who have been granted bail. Her examples include Babu Bajrangi and Maya Kodnani, both of whom were convicted in the Naroda Patiya massacre..But this is not what has irked the High Court judge, rather it is the “game plan” of Roy that is revealed after a “careful reading” of the article..“The tenor of the article shows that the author knows each and every details about the applicant and is highly interested in anyhow getting his release on bail. Instead of challenging the orders…the author appears to have invented a novel idea of bashing the Central Government, the State Government, the Police.”.The judge goes on to note that,.“Calling the Government and police as being “afraid” of the applicant, “abductor” and “thief” and the Magistrate from a “small town”, demonstrate the surly, rude and boorish attitude of the author in the most tolerant country like India. …..As to the physical condition of the applicant, whether she verified the Government hospital records of the jail and the special and super medical treatment given to him or whether whatever she has written in the article for somehow getting the release of the applicant Dr. Saibaba from Jail is out of her imagination and bombastic ideas. Prima facie, it appears to me that the author thinks that she is above the law.”.As for Roy’s statements that the professor’s health is deteriorating, the judge observes that,.“It is not in dispute that the applicant suffered 90% disability from his childhood. He had also undergone cardiac surgery about 8 to 10 years before and, therefore, the projection made by the applicant, the author Arundhati Roy or Purnima Upadhyay, the so called human right champions, on account of his arrest and thereafter detention in Jail in such a serious crime or absence of medical facilities and his health is deteriorating in jail and so and so forth, is nothing but a subterfuge and excuse to come out of jail.” .After denying bail and directing the professor to surrender at the Central Jail in Nagpur, the court resolves that criminal contempt ought to be initiated against Roy..“It is not in dispute that by making the above allegations and remarks about the rejection order made by this Court as above and then asking as to why the applicant should not also get relief of bail by scandalizing the Court, in my opinion, amounts to interfering in the administration of justice and lowering down the image of the judiciary without any basis and with selfish motive.” .The matter is now listed for January 25 next year..(Read the Bombay High Court’s order below)
The author, not for the first time, faces the ire of the Indian judiciary. AB Chaudhari J. of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Arundhati Roy for an article she wrote in May this year..The decision to initiate criminal contempt (Indian Express) came while hearing the bail application of Dr. GN Saibaba, a lecturer at Ramlal Anand College in Delhi, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in May last year. The UAPA is a legislation that has faced criticism. Arun Ferreira, who was arrested under the UAPA described it as one that criminalises thoughts..Following his abduction in May, (the Maharashtra police say he was arrested in Delhi while on his way home), Saibaba was incarcerated in the “anda” cell of the Nagpur Central Jail..Since then, the professor, who is paralysed from waist down, has seen a rapid deterioration of health..In June this year, the Bombay High Court granted temporary bail while hearing a suo motu PIL after activists wrote to the then Chief Justice, Mohit Shah. In September, a Division Bench extended the temporary bail on medical grounds till December 31, 2015. The petition was dismissed, with directions that the Nagpur Bench be approached for regular bail..Which is how the matter came up before AB Chaudhari J..While holding that there was no reason to grant bail, the judge also took note of an article Roy had written in Outlook magazine published on May 12 this year..In her article, Roy had argued that the arrest of the “wheel-chair bound” English lecturer was due to Saibaba’s mobilisation of an “entirely un-secret campaign” against Operation Green Hunt, a massive State offensive in central India..Towards the end of her article, Roy provides examples of “well-known public figures” who have been granted bail. Her examples include Babu Bajrangi and Maya Kodnani, both of whom were convicted in the Naroda Patiya massacre..But this is not what has irked the High Court judge, rather it is the “game plan” of Roy that is revealed after a “careful reading” of the article..“The tenor of the article shows that the author knows each and every details about the applicant and is highly interested in anyhow getting his release on bail. Instead of challenging the orders…the author appears to have invented a novel idea of bashing the Central Government, the State Government, the Police.”.The judge goes on to note that,.“Calling the Government and police as being “afraid” of the applicant, “abductor” and “thief” and the Magistrate from a “small town”, demonstrate the surly, rude and boorish attitude of the author in the most tolerant country like India. …..As to the physical condition of the applicant, whether she verified the Government hospital records of the jail and the special and super medical treatment given to him or whether whatever she has written in the article for somehow getting the release of the applicant Dr. Saibaba from Jail is out of her imagination and bombastic ideas. Prima facie, it appears to me that the author thinks that she is above the law.”.As for Roy’s statements that the professor’s health is deteriorating, the judge observes that,.“It is not in dispute that the applicant suffered 90% disability from his childhood. He had also undergone cardiac surgery about 8 to 10 years before and, therefore, the projection made by the applicant, the author Arundhati Roy or Purnima Upadhyay, the so called human right champions, on account of his arrest and thereafter detention in Jail in such a serious crime or absence of medical facilities and his health is deteriorating in jail and so and so forth, is nothing but a subterfuge and excuse to come out of jail.” .After denying bail and directing the professor to surrender at the Central Jail in Nagpur, the court resolves that criminal contempt ought to be initiated against Roy..“It is not in dispute that by making the above allegations and remarks about the rejection order made by this Court as above and then asking as to why the applicant should not also get relief of bail by scandalizing the Court, in my opinion, amounts to interfering in the administration of justice and lowering down the image of the judiciary without any basis and with selfish motive.” .The matter is now listed for January 25 next year..(Read the Bombay High Court’s order below)