Patkar, Roy dare SC to jail them for contempt

new delhi: the contempt of court proceedings against narmada bachao andolan activists medha patkar and arundhati roy took a serious and unprecedented turn on thursday, when they stood by their views stated in the affidavits and dared the supreme court to send them to jail if these were "contemptuous". the court had taken exception to the "tenor of their affidavits" filed in response to the contempt notices, saying "the tenor...may itself be contemptuous". "there are positive assertions in the petitions, which if established and proved, will no doubt amount to contempt," the court said. a bench comprising justice g b pattanaik and justice ruma pal reserved the order on the petition filed by some advocates seeking action against patkar, roy and lawyer prashant bhushan, for allegedly raising "derogatory" slogans against the judiciary and apex court judges during an nba "dharna" in front of the supreme court. the protest was against a majority judgment by a three-judge bench, which dismissed its petition seeking stoppage of work at the sardar sarovar dam. the trio refuted the petitioners' claim that they raised any slogan derogatory to the judiciary or questioning the integrity of the judges of the apex court. patkar's lawyer shanti bhushan said there was a perception among people that "the courts were far too removed from the reality and were using the contempt powers against those who criticise judgments". when the bench asked about the "derogatory" remarks made in her affidavit, bhushan replied:"if this is contempt, then send her to jail. she is ready for it". bhushan said that patkar's affidavit "be not taken as an affront to judiciary". she feels that she had the right to protest against all organs of the state, including the judiciary, bhushan said. roy argued for herself. she told the bench: "i find the issuance of notice insulting to me. i stand by my affidavit. if you (the court) think it is contemptuous, please proceed against me". earlier, additional solicitor general altaf ahmad, while assisting the court, termed the tone and tenor of the response of patkar and roy to the court n tices as "improper and sermonising the court". the bench said if it felt that there was nothing against the respondents, the notices against them would be quashed. if, however, it was of the view that an inquiry was needed to establish facts, it would order so. on the other hand, if the court finds any of the respondents' remarks made in the affidavit as prima facie contemptuous, separate notices would be issued to him or her, the bench added. the court had told roy that nobody disputed her acclaimed writings and the achievements she had in the field of literature. "but that does not mean you would impute motives... if you feel that we have a personal hysteria against you, you are wrong. we are here to administer the rule of law," the bench said. the court also warned the petitioner advocates - j r parasher, umed singh and r k virmani -that if the allegations they have made against the respondents were found to be false, "you may also be sent to jail".