A Bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice Ruma Pal also rejected her plea for referring the case to a larger Bench for hearing. The Bench said: "On going through the reply, we are not satisfied that the matter should be dropped."

Exempting her from personal appearance on the next date of hearing, the Bench fixed second week of January next for dealing with the matter.

The apex court also rejected an application filed by former Speaker Rabi Ray and 13 other eminent persons justifying Roy's first affidavit. When counsel Kamini Jaiswal representing the applicants contended that her clients be allowed to intervene in the case, the Bench said: "We do not need quantity to decide the matter."

In August, the apex court had issued a notice to Roy to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for making "contemptuous" statements in three paragraphs forming part of her affidavit. The court's action had its basis in the Booker Prize winner's refusal to retract from her statements.

The Bench, however, had dropped proceedings against Roy, Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on the allegations by a group of lawyers that they had shouted abusive slogans against the Supreme Court while protesting against its judgement allowing construction of Narmada dam. At the same time, the court took serious note of Roy's affidavit filed in connection with the incident.

In her latest nine-page reply filed after being served the notice, Roy said: "In conclusion, may I take the liberty of saying that the process of the trial and all that it entails, is as much, if not more, of a punishment than the sentence itself.

"If the court sentences a writer to a short spell in prison for the alleged 'crime' of stating a reasonable and honest impression, her mind can float through the bars to freedom.