[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: The Hindu - 'Supreme Court objects to NBA statements'
Online edition of India's National Newspaper on indiaserver.com
The Hindu, Friday, July 23, 1999
Supreme Court objects to NBA statements
By T Padmanabha Rao
NEW DELHI, JULY 22. The Supreme Court, after perusing various statements
and press releases by Narmada Bachao Andolan - (petitioner in the public
interest petition relating to the Sardar Sarovar Project) - and also
certain statements in an article (touching on the Narmada Dam controversy)
by Ms. Arundhati Roy, Booker-prize winner, published in an issue dated May
24 of Outlook magazine, as well as the book For the greater common good
written by her - observed that `prime facie' it appeared that there was an
attempt ``to undermine the dignity of the court and influence the course of
justice''. The bench comprising the Chief Justice, Dr. A.S. Anand, Mr.
Justice S.P. Barucha and Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal, before proceeding further
in the matter, appointed Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senor advocate and president,
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) as an amicus curiae to assist the
court in regard to any action required to be taken in this matter as well
as the main petition.
The bench made today's order on an interlucotary application from Gujarat
State which brought the above material to the notice of the court. The
State's application complained of ``a consistent and persistent approach on
the part of the petitioner (Narmada Bachao Andolan) in ignoring apex
court's directions passed from time to time, more particularly, in relation
with publication of various matters in different newspapers, journals and
other media touching upon the matter under consideration of the court'' (in
the main PIL petition).
The application sought the court to issue suitable directions to the
petitioners (Narmada Bachao Andolan) that no statements whatsoever
concerning the subject-matter of litigation were made by any of the persons
associated with the petitioner (namely, Narmada Bachao Andolan). The
application also sought the court's suitable action against the persons
associated with the petitioner who had allegedly defied the orders of the
court.
Appearing for Narmada Bachao Andolan its counsel submitted that the
`tribunal award' on Narmada dam required to be reviewed in view of the
plight of the thousands of oustees.When the counsel submitted that the
rehabilitation of the oustees was not being implemented suitably and
effectively, the cousel appearing for Gujarat pleaded that the ``grievances
redressal authority'' headed by a former High Court Chief Justice was
proceeding expeditiously with its work.
When the NBA counsel contended that the question raised (in the States'
application) was linked to the right of citizens to discuss on such topics
as - `shortcomings of judicial process' vis-a-vis vital issues concerning
the large sections of the people concerned, the bench orally observed that
the `limited issue' was to the obligation of the parties concerned in a
case before the court to comment on matters pending in the court keeping in
view the court's earlier `restraint order' in this regard.
The bench fixed July 29 for further hearing of this matter.