In Re Arundhati Roy:

In a democracy criticism is important, people have the right to raise their voice
against anything unjust or wrong, even if they have to rise up against the
judiciary (supreme guarantor of rule of law). S.C has a right to safeguard its
sanctity amongst the citizen but in order to do so it cannot be illogical and
cannot give a right to say ill about the judiciary to a person who is a part of it
and penalize someone who doesnt have a special knowledge of, as was done in
the given case1.
A judge must recluse on its own in matters where he has a personal interest,
which did not happen in the instant case, as the matter of contempt was presided
over by a judge against whom contempt was alleged. S.Cs refusal of the plea of
truth as defence was fallacious as the contemptuous affidavit had factual basis
in it, as evident from the extracts of the judgment.
The sentence awarded for one day was unjust as per the Contempt of Court Act ,
if contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes with the due course
of justice,sentence is warranted, but in the present no such charge was framed.
Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd vs Subhash Kapoor And Others on 14 November,
2000
Supreme court in the above judgment was correct in holding that lawyers should
not be allowed to go on strike or boycott as they have greater responsibilities
and roles to play in the administration of justice. Lawyers have a special
relationship with their clients and the circumstances under which they ae
engaged are crucial for te clients. Therefore lawyers have to keep in mind that
every step taken by them would result into cruciating circumstamnces for the
person in need for justice, and strikes would hamper the due process of justice.
Representing a client is an obligation of a lawyer, and if that is not done it
would amount to breach of duty and would lowr the dignity of court as he is an
officer of the court too.
It was correctly held that judiciary cannot be stonewalled by the bullying and if
a lawyer does not want to represent a party, he must give up the case so as to let
the party to engage someone else. Depriving a party from justice by not
1 P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker,

representing them and holding strikes and depriving others too is not only
incorrect in the eyes of law but also is morally incorrect.