The Bengal Marxists, Courts and Contempt (this one appeared in the Economic Times, Saturday, December 1, 2008)

The contempt notice issued by the Calcutta High Court to the CPI(M)’s West Bengal unit secretary, Biman Bose, and party central committee members Shyamal Chakravarty and Benoy Konar for their comments on an earlier ruling by the court that the March 14 police firing in Nandigram was unconstitutional has raised some issues that should provoke a debate on the law of contempt as such. And any such discussion will have to be in the specific context of the developments in Nandigram as well as the CPI (M)-led government’s acts of commission and omission vis-a-vis Nandigram. The developments in Nandigram can be placed in two distinct stages. The first is the resistance to the state government’s moves to acquire land (to be handed over to the Salem Group to set up a chemical hub) culminating in the brutal police action on March 14 that left at least 14 people dead. And the second stage began with the blockade of the region by the people, aided by political workers from outside, which prevented police and other officials of the government from entering the region. All this culminated in the invasion of those villages by the armed men of the CPI(M) between November 7 and 11 by when Nandigram was recaptured. The party has drawn considerable flak, and for all the right reasons, for all that it did in Nandigram. It is also a fact that many well-meaning intellectuals have mustered “facts” in their own way to justify everything that the CPI (M) did in the context of Nandigram. The debate on this will go on for a while and it is unlikely that the CPI (M) changes its view anytime. It is for the party and its members to decide as to whether such brutal and savage acts are in conformity with Marxist praxis; and for its supporters outside to decide whether to continue supporting the party or not. This, however, is not the case with the contempt notices that its leaders have received. The law of contempt being a matter in the public domain, it is important that the issue is discussed in the open. And it is most likely that Biman Bose and his comrades will relate themselves with one of their icons, E M S Namboodiripad, while dealing with the contempt notice. Hence it is appropriate to recall the case, the first to come up and adjudicated under the contempt law. Namboodiripad’s remark, at a public meeting, that in a conflict between a poor man and the pot-bellied rich man the judiciary often stood by the latter led to a contempt notice against him and the Kerala High Court held him guilty in that case. Namboodiripad appealed against that before the Supreme Court and Chief Justice M Hidayatullah upheld the conviction by the Kerala High Court but reduced the punishment to a fine of Re 1 (AIR 1970 SC 2015). It was symbolic, and Namboodiripad paid the fine. The judgement, in many ways, went against the spirit of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution that guarantees the right to free speech and expression. Namboodiripad did not say anything that interfered with the delivery of justice; nor did he incite disobedience of any judgement. The CPI(M) leader, then, had only made an academic point on the nature of the state, of which the judiciary too is a part, in a society dominated by the rich and the mighty. There could be a difference of opinion. The case involving Biman Bose and two of his comrades now, however, is in a different category. The CPI(M) stormy petrel has been issued with a notice for contempt of court for making a specific and insinuating charge against the Calcutta High Court judges on a particular observation by them and pertaining to the police action on March 14. And the observations were made in the context of a petition before them seeking an order that the brutal behaviour by the police that day be investigated by the CBI. Let us put down the details of the case in brief here. The petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a CBI probe into the March 14 police firing and charges of rape was absolutely justified and even necessary. It was justified because any other investigation in that matter was bound to be influenced by the CPI (M) controlled civil administration in West Bengal. It is the same as expecting the Gujarat police or even a judge from the subordinate judiciary in the state to unravel the truth behind the February-March anti-Muslim pogrom in the state. And it was necessary because a high court order alone could have ensured a CBI enquiry into the Nandigram violence. The CBI derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. And Section 6 of the Act lays down that the CBI shall take up investigation of conventional crimes such as murder, kidnapping and rape, either on reference from the state governments or when directed by the Supreme Court/high courts. There was no way that the CPI(M)-led government was going to refer the March 14 “incidents” to the CBI. And the only option left before public-spirited persons who wanted to stand up for the people of Nandigram was to approach the Calcutta High Court. And the high court bench ordered investigations by the CBI and asked it to present the preliminary findings before the court. Similar orders were passed by various high courts in the past. The Patna High Court, for instance, ordered the CBI to investigate the fodder scam and allegations against several people including Lalu Prasad Yadav at that time and report the progress in the case regularly. It is another matter that the CBI is anything but an autonomous agency as it is made out. And with the numbers that the CPI (M) has in the Lok Sabha and the dependence of the UPA government on the party for survival, only the naïve will expect the truth about Nandigram to be unravelled by the CBI. And for all these reasons, it is strange that Biman Bose and his party are now trying to paint the issue as a dispute between the judiciary and the executive. The ravings and ranting by Bose is of the same kind as that of the campaign by Indira Gandhi and her followers in the heydays of the Emergency for a committed judiciary that ended in the notorious 42nd Constitution Amendment. And hence, is inimical to democracy.