Professional ethicsContemptSupreme Court of India

In re Arundhati Roy

(2002) 3 SCC 343; AIR 2002 SC 1375; [2002] 2 SCR 21320021 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In contempt proceedings that arose from a protest outside the Supreme Court, Arundhati Roy filed an affidavit containing statements that imputed improper motives to the Court.
Issue
Whether those statements amounted to criminal contempt.
Held
The statements scandalised the Court and lowered its authority; they were criminal contempt.
Principle
Fair criticism of judgments is allowed, but statements in an affidavit attributing improper motives to the court are criminal contempt.
Cite this

Facts

  • In contempt proceedings that arose from a protest outside the Supreme Court, Arundhati Roy filed an affidavit containing statements that imputed improper motives to the Court.

Issue

  1. Whether those statements amounted to criminal contempt.

Held

  • The statements scandalised the Court and lowered its authority; they were criminal contempt.
  • She was sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000.

Ratio decidendi

Freedom of speech protects fair and reasoned criticism of judgments, not attacks that attribute motives to the court.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A (6 marks): Cite for: line between fair criticism and contempt.
  • Part B (16 marks): Use in answers on Bar-Bench relations, Art. 19(1)(a) and S.2(c) contempt.
  • Key line for exam: "Fair criticism is allowed; imputing motives to the court is contempt."

Cite this

Citation

In re Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343; AIR 2002 SC 1375; [2002] 2 SCR 213

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/505614/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.