NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Comments and writings by the petitioner (NBA) and Ms. Arundhati Roy during the pendency of proceedings—despite court orders restraining parties from going to the press—constituted prima facie disobedience and had the tendency to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the administration of justice. However, considering the broader issue of resettlement and rehabilitation which the court was monitoring, in the larger interest of justice, contempt proceedings were not initiated, but the parties were cautioned against future conduct.

Parties
Petitioner: Narmada Bachao Andolan; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Application for Contempt (i.a. No. 14 of 1999) During Pendency of Main Writ Petition
Outcome
Application for contempt (I.A. No. 14 of 1999) disposed of without initiating contempt proceedings.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Speech and Expression, Scandalising the Court, Interim Injunction, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Press and Media Restrictions
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Freedom of Speech and Expression Scandalising the Court Interim Injunction Resettlement and Rehabilitation Press and Media Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narmada Bachao Andolan

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Application for Contempt (i.a. No. 14 of 1999) During Pendency of Main Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether public comments and writings by leaders of Narmada Bachao Andolan and others during pendency of proceedings violated interim injunctions and amounted to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether writings by a third party (Ms. Arundhati Roy) constitute a scandalising of the court or interference with administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Comments and writings by the petitioner (NBA) and Ms. Arundhati Roy during the pendency of proceedings—despite court orders restraining parties from going to the press—constituted prima facie disobedience and had the tendency to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the administration of justice. However, considering the broader issue of resettlement and rehabilitation which the court was monitoring, in the larger interest of justice, contempt proceedings were not initiated, but the parties were cautioned against future conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for contempt (I.A. No. 14 of 1999) disposed of without initiating contempt proceedings.

Orders

  • No contempt proceedings to be initiated against petitioner, its leaders or the author.
  • Petitioners and associated persons cautioned to desist from conduct likely to undermine the administration of justice or violate court injunctions.