MANU/DE/0576/2001

Equivalent Citation: III(2001)C C R338(Del.), 2001C riLJ3476, 2001(59)DRJ298, 2001(4)RC R(C riminal)450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. Contempt Petition No. 8 of 2001 and Crl. Contempt Petition No. 9/2001
Decided On: 28.05.2001
Appellants: Surya Prakash Khatri and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Madhu Trehan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, C.J., Arun Kumar, A.D. Singh, Devinder Kumar Jain and Om Prakash
Dwivedi, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: Mr. R.K. Anand, Sr. Adv., Mr. B.S. Sherawat, Mr. K.C.
Mittal, Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Mr. I.U. Khan and Mr. S.B. Sharma, Advs Gopal Subramanium,
Sr. Adv. and Mr. A.J. Bhambhani, Adv Ms Mukta Gupta, Adv Mr. A.K. Srivastava and Mr.
C.S. Rathore, Advs
Case Note:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1) (a)--Right of freedom of speech--
Freedom of press--ransgression of freedom--Article published by "Wah India"
magazine--Termed "denigrating Judges"--Questioning of integrity and
competence--"Judge bashing" alleged "obnoxious" overstepping of borders of
decency--Tends to cause aspersions on the integrity and capability of Hon'ble
Judges of High Court--Members of judiciary shown in poor light--Diminish or
destroy public confidence--Scurrilous attack on judge's Integrity, honesty and
judicial competence and impartiality of judges, offensive and intimidating--
Freedom of press an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of
Government--Why press is regarded as the "mother" is acting like a step
mother to judicially is baffling--Unqualified apology tendered--Acceptance of--
Conditionally accepted by majority despite dissent--To publish apology
appropriately.
Held:
The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be
responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of
the journalists. In an organized society, the rights of the press have to be recognised
with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality,
and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must
not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper,
mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of law.
There can be no quarrel with the proposition that any one who intends to tarnish the
image of judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking the reputation
of Judges, the ultimate victim is the institution. The day the consumer of justice lose
faith in the institution that would be the darkest day for mankind. The importance of
judiciary needs no reiteration. It was fairly accepted at the bar that in the past whenever

24-05-2021 (Page 1 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

there was any attack on the press, they have rushed to the Courts and have described
the judiciary as their saviour. It is strange that the very institution which has come to
its rescue, has been attacked thereby corroding its credibility. A messiah suddenly finds
Himself treated as a paria ,. A common man may start losing confidence in judiciary by
saying that the judgment delivered in his case is not above board, and "condonable
limit" of publication Mulgonkar's case (supra) would be exceeded. Ultimate sufferer
would be the society.
The respondents are journalists of standing and repute. We have no reason to doubt
their bona fides about tendering the apologies nor have we any reason to doubt the
genuineness of apologies. The respondents have expressed a feeling of remorse. In the
facts and circumstances of the case with particular reference to the respondents before
us acceptance of apology will comparatively be a better atonement for the respondents
for their impugned act as compared to award of punishment in the form of fine or
imprisonment or both. We accept the apologies offered. We feel it necessary to point
out that proper care and caution should have been exercised by the contemners before
the publication. If there is recurrence of the amiss either by the respondents or any
other person it shall be sternly dealt with.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contemnors has undertaken that an
appropriate apology shall be published if so directed. Let the same be published within
two weeks from today in five national dailies, published in English, and copies thereof
be filed in the Registry of this Court within three days of such publication . If it is not
done the matter shall be listed for further orders . If it is done, the matter shall be
treated as closed. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c)--Contempt --Criminal --
Scandalising and lowering authority of Court --Interfering into administration
of justice--Rarest of rare cases for intervention by Court--Article published in
"Wan India" magazine under caption of "Judges Out" on' the alleged
assessment of "Senior Lawyers" of the Court -- Exercise of power --Not being
exercised to indicate the honour of individual judges who are attacked or
scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of law-Unqualified apology -
Permissibility-Tendering of-Stage of-Subsequent act of contemnors-Neither
genuine nor in good faith -- Dissenting opinion of acceptance of apology --
Prima facie contempt committed, but no doubt about bona fides of majority
accepted conditionally to publish apology appropriately--Petition disposed of
accordingly.
On the point of genuineness also, the apologies do not impress me. Mere parrot like
repetition of regrets in almost identically worded affidavits does not convince me that
the respondents are really remorseful or repentant. Even on the last date of hearing
there was an attempt to justify the offending publication with reference to some
material. We would like to examine it and face it. When there is an attempt to justify
the contents of the offending article even after filing affidavits of apology such
apologies can be said to be anything but genuine. I am, Therefore, inclined to agree
with the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Attorney General that it is only
a ploy to escape the punishment.
We unanimously hold that prima facie contempt has been committed by the respondents
. However, so far as acceptance of apologies is concerned, in view of the conclusions of
the majority, the directions contained in paragraph No. 26 are to be carried out.

24-05-2021 (Page 2 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

 ORDER
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
1. Expressing concern at the scurrilous manner in which an article has been published,
in a journal named "Wah India," scornfully denigrating Judges putting question marks
on their integrity and competence, these petitions have been filed. According to the
petitioners the article in obnoxious and is "judge bashing". As the petitions involve
almost identical prayer, they are taken up together for disposal. It is alleged that in the
name of freedom of press and fair journalism, borders of decency and respect for the
judiciary have been overstepped and a distorted version has been presented which has
lowered the image of judiciary and Therefore attracts stringent action. In the article in
question, certain statements have been made which tend to cause aspersions on the
integrity and capability of Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is highlighted that without
any material to support or even proper verification of the statements purported to have
been made by some members of the Bar, the article has been published which tends to
show members of judiciary in a very poor light and it would result in consumer of
justice losing faith on the members of judiciary and corrode credibility of the institution.
It is pointed out that the article is full of mis-statements. The lack of accuracy and truth,
it is pointed out, is apparent from the fact that fifty "senior counsel" have been
described as one-tenth of the total strength of the Delhi High Court Bar. As to who the
so-called senior lawyers are have not been indicated and how they have been described
as "senior lawyers" is shrouded in mystery. It is emphasized that even if any lawyer(s)
gave any statement of expressed his/her opinion, the same cannot be stated to be view
of the Bar and Therefore Delhi Bar Council, the Apex statutory body of lawyers has filed
one of the petitions i.e. Criminal Contempt Petition 8/2001. The other petition being
9/2001 also takes strong exceptions to the article. Prayer made is that sinister designs
aiming at lowering the image of judiciary and showing the Judges in poor light should
be sternly dealt with under the contempt of Court Act, 1971 (in short the Act) and
Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution)
2. Unqualified apology has been tendered by the Editor-in-chief and other respondents
who are Printer, Publisher and Editor, Creative Director, Sub Editor and Special
Correspondent of the magazine by filing two affidavits each. It has been indicated in the
affidavits of apology that there was no intention to show slightest disrespect to the
members of the judiciary; that it was now meant to cause any aspersion on the
institution or the Hon'ble Judges and it was then not realised that it would be regarded
as derogatory to the judiciary, but that it is not realised to be a serious error on their
part and Therefore unconditional apology has been tendered. It has been stated that the
deponents do not subscribe to any statement or expression of opinion in the article, and
in particular the appraisal of Hob'ble Judges. Further, the appraisal is not the
representative view of the whole Bar and once the date was tabulated no further
verification was carried out to ascertain the correctness of the result and it was never
suggested that the deponents had satisfied themselves about correctness of the
appraisal. Shri Ashok H Desai, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
contemners submitted that apology has been tendered unconditionally at the threshold
and Therefore should be accepted, more particularly when contemners have not tried to
justify the publication and have owned up their mistake. The Learned Attorney General
who, pursuant to our desire, appeared as amices curiae, stated that it was unfortunate
that an article of the nature has been published. According to him freedom of press
cannot be stretched to absurd levels and there should not be any abuse of that freedom.
So far as the apology is concerned, he submitted that if it is tendered bonafide and
sincerely at the threshold of the proceedings; not after some arguments are advanced to

24-05-2021 (Page 3 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

justify the publication, and not as an attempt to get out of the contempt proceedings,
the same can be accepted. To put it differently, he stated that apology should be
bonafide and not a camouflage to avoid consequences flowing from contempt
proceedings. Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. B.L. Wadhera appearing for the petitioners
however resisted the prayer for accepting the apology of the ground that it would
amount to first throw mud on the judiciary, and then come to the court with apology
and get away with it. According to them it is a fit case where stringent action is called
for and any act of leniency is bound to be misunderstood as a weakness of the
institution. They submitted that though in a genuine case apology of the nature
tendered can be accepted, the present case is not one of them. The language used in
the article is sarcastic, contemptuous, and sole object of the article was attacking the
credibility of the institution and defaming it.
3. The press plays a vital role in the administration of justice. "It is the watchdog to see
that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and aboveboard. But the watchdog may
sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehavior". In the words of Judge
Lord Denning, M.R in his book Road to Justice, (1955) at page 78 which have become
locus classicus. But a watchdog should not become a blood hound. Press occupies a
vital place in the modern society. It is a necessary instrumentality for strengthening the
process of democracy. In this country it has risen to great heights in the past. When we
were under foreign domination, press on the one hand awakened human consciousness
toward their rights to freedom and liberty and on the other hand posed a threat to the
foreign rulers of being exposed wherever they did any act of highhandedness. Yet any
institution when misused is bound to do more harm than good. Press too in the zeal of
either helping the victim of oppression, or in exposing the oppressor enters into the
field of investigations or trial of a pending case. It was here that conflict with the
judiciary came and cases for contempt of court were started. In 1954, a Press
Commission was appointed, which enquired into all matters connected with the working
of Press and all aspects of journalism. One of the matters considered was contempt of
Court and contempt of Legislature.
4 . The freedom of the press is basically the freedom of the individuals to express
themselves through the medium of press. This implies that the freedom of press is not
superior to that of an individual. In fact this freedom is fundamental to the life of an
individual. In the words of William Blackstone, "The liberty of the Press is indeed
essential to the nature of a free State. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay
what sentiment he pleased before the public, to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of
the press. But if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal he must take the
consequences of his own temerity". (See Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol IV at pages
151, 152). In early nineteenth century Lord Ellenborough observed in Rex v. Cobbet:
(1804) 29 H St. Tr.1
"The law of England is the low of liberty, and consistently with this liberty we
have not what is called an imprimatur, there is no such preliminary license
necessary but if a man publishes a paper he is exposed to the penal
consequences as he is in every other act if it be illegal"
5. There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be freedom of speech
and writing, but reasonable restriction can be imposed. It will be of relevance to
compare the various suggestions as prevalent in America and India. It is worthwhile to
note that all utterances against a Judge or concerning a pending case do not in America
amount to contempt of Court. In Article 19 the expression "reasonable restrictions" is
used which is almost at par with the American phraseology "inherent tendency" or

24-05-2021 (Page 4 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

"reasonable tendency". The Apex Court of America in Bridges v California (1911) 86
L Ed. 192 said:
"What finally emerges from the clear and present danger cases is a working
principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high
before utterances can be punished."
The vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish
for contempt of Court. The fires which is kindles must constitute an imminent, not
merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The stream of administration of
justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitality
to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, Therefore required to
be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to
enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. To similar
effect were the observations of Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times
Newspapers 1974 AC 273 . It was observed that when unjustifiable interference is
suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administration of
justice are concerned for their own dignity, it is because the very structure of ordered
life is at risk if the recognised Courts of the Land are so flouted and their authority
wanes and is supplanted.
6. The press does not have the right, which is its professional function, to criticize and
to advocate. The whole gamut of public affairs is the domain for fearless and critical
comment and not least the administration of justice. But the public function which
belongs to the press makes it an obligation of honour to exercise the function only with
the fullest sense of responsibility. Without such a lively sense of responsibility a free
press may readily become a powerful instrument of injustice. It should not and may not
attempt to influence Judge before they have made up their minds on pending
controversies. Such a restriction, which merely bars the operation of extraneous
influence specifically directed to a concrete case, in no way curtails the fullest
discussion of public issues generally. It is not suggested that generalized discussion of
a particular topic should be forbidden, or run the hazard of contempt proceedings,
merely because some phrases of such a general topic may be involved in a pending
litigation. It is the focussed attempt to influence a particular decision that may have a
corroding effect on the process of justice, and it is such comment that justified the
corrective process. To similar effect was the observation of Frankfurther, J. in
Pennekampt v. florida: (1946) 90 Law Ed. 1295.
7. There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity
from fair criticism. No Court can claim to be always right although it does not spare any
effort to be right according to the best of the ability, knowledge and judgment of the
Judges. They do not think themselves to be in possession of all truth to hold that
wherever others differ from them are in error. No one is more conscious of his
limitations and fallibility than a Judge. But because of his training and the assistance he
gets from learned counsel he is apt to avoid mistakes more than others. While fair and
temperate criticism of the Court even if strong, may not be actionable, but attributing
improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or
obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of
which notice must be will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom
the judgment of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant.
Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Court,
administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts,

24-05-2021 (Page 5 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

should take heed for they will act at their own peril. To similar effect were the
observations of Hidayatullah, C.J., (as the learned judge was then) in R.C. Cooper v.
Union of India MANU/SC/0011/1970 : [1970]3SCR530 .
8 . The freedom of press under our Constitution is not higher than that of citizen and
that there is no greater privilege attaching to the profession of the press as
distinguished from the members of the public. To whatever height the subject in general
may go, so also may the journalist, and if an ordinary citizen may not transgress the
law so must not the Press. That the exercise of expression is subject to the reasonable
restriction of the law of contempt is borne out by clause(2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution. It should be well to remember that the Judges by reason of their office are
precluded from entering into any controversy in the columns of the public press, nor
can they enter the arena and do battle upon equal terms in newspapers, as can be done
by ordinary citizens. In this context comes to mind views of Lord Denning expressed in
the following words:-
"All we would ask is that those who criticize us will remember that from the
nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into
public controversy. Still less into, political controversy. We must reply on our
conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as we are to the winds of
criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that nothing which is written
by this pen or that, will deter us doing what we believe is right; nor I would
add from saying what the occasion requires provided that it is pertinent to the
matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done. (See. R.V.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex. p. (1968) 2 All. E.R. 3(9).
9 . There is an abundance of empirical decisions upon particular instances of conduct
which has been held to constitute contempt of Court. We shall now refer to a few. Lord
Russel of Killowen, L.C. J, has laid down in Reg v. Gray 1900(2) QB 36 as follows:
"Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the
Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court."
It cannot be denied that judgment are open to criticisms and in the said case it was
observed
"Judges and Courts are alike open to criticism and if reasonable argument or
expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or public
good, no Court could or would treat that as contempt of Court". Indeed, Section
5 of the Act now provides that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court
for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been
heard and finally decided. But, if such a defense is taken, it is always open to
test whether the publication alleged to be offending was by way of fair
comment on the merits of the case or was personal scurrilous abuse of a Judge
as a Judge, for abuse of a Judge or a Court or attacks on the personal character
of a Judge are clearly punishable contempt. As stated in para 2 at page 21 of
Volume-9 of Halsbury's Laws of England; Fourth Edition, "The punishment is
inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or the
individual Judges of the Court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting
the public, and specially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, from the mischief they will incur if the
authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired."
The view was echoed by the Apex Court in D. Saxena v. CJI MANU/SC/0627/1996

24-05-2021 (Page 6 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

: 1996CriLJ3274 In the same volume of Halsbury's Laws of England at para 27 it is
stated thus: "Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a
Judge into contempt or to lower its authority or to interfere with the due course of
justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court."
The above proposition has been approved and followed by Lord Atkin in Andrew Paul
Terence Ambrad v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,AIR 1936 PC
141. It was observed as follows:
"No wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercised the
ordinary right of criticism in good faith in private or public the public act done
in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is public way, the wrong headed are
permitted to err therein, provided that members of the public abstain from
imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice
and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or
attempting to impart the administration of Justice, they are immune. Justice is
not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and
respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men":
Lord Justice Donovan in Attorney General v. Butterworth:1963(1) QB 696 after
making reference to Req. V. Odham's Press Ltd ex parte A.G.: 1957(1) QB 73 said:
"whether or not there was an intention to interfere with the administration of justice is
relevant to penalty not to quit". This makes it clear that an intention to interfere with
the proper administration of justice is an essential ingredient of the offence of contempt
of court and it is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so to interfere.
In Morris v. Crown Office: 1970(1) All E.R. 1079 , Lord Denning M.R. said: that the
course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who do it strike at the
very foundations of our society. In the same case, Lord Justice Salmon spoke:
"The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power
effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration
of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented."
Frank Further, J. in Offutt v. U.S.: 1954(348) U.S. 11 expressed his view as follows:
"It is a mode of vindicating the majesty or law, in its active manifestation
against obstruction and outrage."
In Jennison v. Baker : 1972(1) All E.R. 997 it is stated:
"The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free,
and those who seek its protection lose hope."
10. Chinappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench in Advocate General Bihar v. M.P.
Khair Industries: 1980(3) SCC 3111 citing those two decisions in the cases of Offutt
and Jenison (supra) stated thus:
".....It may be necessary to punish as a contempt a cause of conduct which
abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its
pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of
the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an
abiding and a real interest, and vital stake in the effective and orderly
administration of justice, because unless justice is so administered, there is the
peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting

24-05-2021 (Page 7 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

 the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so it is
contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against
Contempt of Court may seem to suggest but to protect and to vindicate the
right of the public and the administration of justice shall not be prevented,
prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with."
Krishna Iyer, J. in his separate judgment In re. S. Mulgaokar: MANU/SC/0067/1977 :
[1978]3SCR162 , while giving broad guidelines in taking punitive action in the matter of
contempt of Court has stated:
".....If the Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous,
offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm
of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow
on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source
and stream"
1 1 . In the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma and others v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh: MANU/SC/0020/1953 : 1954CriL J238 , the Apex Court after referring to
various decisions of the foreign countries as well as of the Privy Council stated thus:
"It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the
minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or
to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon
the Court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in
the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well
established that it is not necessary to prove affirmative that there has been an
actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such
defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely or tends in any way to interfere
with the proper administration of law."
12. It may be noted here that in the illustrated case Re: S. Mulgaokar (supra) it was
held that the judiciary cannot be immune from criticism. But, when such criticism is
based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and make in a manner which seems
designed to lower respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot
be ignored.
13. Though certain imputations against the Judge may be only libelous against that
particular individual, it may at times amount to contempt also depending upon the
gravity of the allegations. In Brahma Prakash Sharma's (supra), the Apex court held that
a defamatory attack on a Judge may be a libel so far as the judge is concerned and it
would be open to him to proceed against the libeler in a proper action if he so chooses.
If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with
the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court, it can be
punished separately as contempt. The same view has been taken in Perspective
Publications (P) Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0302/1968 :
1971CriL J268 ; and C.K. Daphtary and others v O.P. Gupta and others
MANU/SC/0065/1971 : 1971CriL J844 . Therefore apart from the fact that a particular
statement is libelous, it can constitute criminal contempt if the imputation is such that
the same is capable of lowering the authority of the Court. The gravity of the aforesaid
statement is that the same would scandalize the court.
14. The right to criticize an opinion of a court, to take issue with it upon its conclusions
as to a legal proposition, or question its conception of the facts, so long as such
criticisms are made in good faith and are in ordinarily decent and respectful language

24-05-2021 (Page 8 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

and are not designed to willfully or maliciously misrepresent the position of the Court,
or tend to bring it into disrespect, or lessen the respect due to the authority to which a
Court is entitled, cannot be questioned. The right of free speech is one of the greatest
guarantee to liberty in a free country like ours, even though that right is frequently and
in many instances outrageously abused. If any considerable portion of a community is
led to believe that either because of gross ignorance of the law or because of a wrong
reason, it cannot reply upon the courts to administer justice that portion of the
community, upon some occasion, is very likely to come to the conclusion that it is
better not to take any chances on the courts failing to do their duty. Judiciary is the bed
rock and handmaid of democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a Court of
law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down. In this background,
observations of Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. v. Lennon
(1968) 3 All E.R. 304 are relevant: "Justice must be rooted in confidence, and
confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking - the Judge is
based."
15. There can be no doubt that Press is a necessary instrumentality for strengthening
the forces of democracy. But every freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions. As we
have already pointed out, it is in the public interest to see that allegations or criticism
which would scandalize or tend to scandalize or tend to lower authority of the Courts is
not permitted because in the functioning of democracy an independent judiciary to
dispense justice without fear or favor is necessary and its strength is the faith of the
public in general in the institution. That cannot be permitted to be undermined because
that will be against public interest. The public interest in ensuring both fair trial and
freedom of speech necessitates a delicate balancing exercise.
16. As observed by the Apex Court in Sewak Ram Sobhani v R.K. Karanjia and
others: MANU/SC/0219/1981 : 1981CriL J894 , the freedom of the journalist is an
ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and to whatever lengths the subject in
general may go so also may the journalist but apart from statute law, his privilege is no
other and no higher. In T. Deen Dayal v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh:
MANU/SC/0851/1997 : 1997CriLJ4080 the Apex Court observed as follows:
"We have extracted the allegations Constituting the contempt in the beginning
of this Order. We are satisfied they are ex facie contumacious and the scurrilous
attack was intended to scandalize the court within the meaning of criminal
contempt under section 2(c) of the act. Such attack as seen above, is
punishable as contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the
popular mind and impairs confidence of the people in courts which are prime,
importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties. This
Court in re: S. Mulgaokar MANU/SC/0067/1977 : [1978]3SCR162 observed as
follows:
"The sixth consideration is that after evaluating the totality of factors, if the
Court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive,
intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits the strong and of the law
must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him
who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and
stream."
17. Considered in the light of the aforesaid position in law, a bare reading of the article
in question makes it clear that the statements made amount to a scurrilous attack on the
integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges. It is offensive and

24-05-2021 (Page 9 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

intimidating. The contemners by their conduct as well as by making such scandalising
statements and invective remarks have interfered and seriously shaken the system of
administration of justice by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs
confidence of the people in the Court. Once door is opened to this kind of allegations,
aspersions and imputations, it may provide a handle to the disgruntled litigants to
malign the Judges, leading to character assassination. The article seems to have been
published with doubtful intentions, oblivious of the implications it would have on the
general public the institution of judiciary and the administration of justice, which is
despicable. A good name is better than good riches. Immediately comes to one's mind
Shakespeare's othello, Act II, Scene 3, 167:-
"Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord
Is the immediate jewel of their souls;
Who steals my purse, steals trash;
its something, nothing;
'T was mine, its his, and has been slate to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
18. It is often said that to err is human but to forgive is noble and to forget is divine.
Majesty of Law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks
made by persons who feel the law Courts will absorb anything and everything, including
attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be borne in mind that
such divinity and magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores
irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. It is to be noted
that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No Court
can took with equanimity on a publicity which may have tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice. Power of press is almost like nuclear power, it can create and
it can destroy. When it is aimed at the judiciary, it finds a soft target because it has
neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which other wings of democracy possess.
Pen is mightier than sword, it is said. Pen used by the press should not be dipped in
poison, it should be used for creativity not destruction. Judiciary should not be like flies
in the hands of wanton boys. Judge bashing is not and cannot be a substitute for
constructive criticism. While a responsible press is a boon to the society, and
irresponsible one is a menace. It needs no reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their
hopes, for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like. Judges do not have any
easy job. They repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make
decisions, said David Pannick in his book "Judges". Judges are mere mortals, but they
are asked to perform a function which is truly divine.
19. What is contempt of Court has been stated in lucid terms by Oswald in Classic
"Book on Contempt of Court". It is said:
"To speak generally, contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any
conduct that tends to bring the authority and demonstration of law into
disrespect and disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or
their witnesses during the litigation."
"Contempt in the legal acceptance of the term, primarily signifies disrespect to
that which is entitled to legal regard, but as a wrong purely moral or affecting
an object not possessing a legal status, it has in the eye of the law no
existence. In its origin all legal contempt will be found to consist in an offence

24-05-2021 (Page 10 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

 more or less direct against the sovereign himself as the fountainhead of law
and justice or against his palace where justice was administered. This clearly
appears from old cases."
2 0 . Lord Diplock, speaking for the Judicial Committee in Chokolingo v. Attorney
General of Trinidad and Tobago (1981) 1 All E.R. 244, summarized the position
thus: "Scandalizing the Court is a convenient way of describing a publication which,
although it does not relate to any specific case either part of pending or any specific
Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to
undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of
justice. Thus, before coming to the conclusion as to whether or not the publication
amounts to a contempt, what will have to be seen is, whether the criticism is fair,
temperate and made in good faith or whether it is something directed to the personal
character of a Judge or to the impartiality of a Judge or court. A finding, one way of the
other, will determine whether or nor the act complained of amounted to contempt."
21. Mahajan, J in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, MANU/SC/0087/1952 :
AIR1953SC75 , observed as follows:-
"No objection could have been taken to the article had it merely preached to the
Courts of law the sermon of divine detachment. But when it proceeded to
attribute improper motives to the Judges, it not only transgressed the limits of
fair and bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and
prestige of this Court..... It is obvious that if an impression is created in the
minds of the public that the Judges in the highest Court of the land act on
extraneous considerations in deciding cases, the confidence of the whole
community in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no
greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined..... We would like to
observe that it is not the practice of this Court to issue such rules except in very
grave and serious cases and it is never over-sensitive to public criticism; but
when there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of
administration of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed with
placid equanimity....."
The article under consideration in the case at hand has conceptually great similarity
with one considered by the Apex Court in the last mentioned case and we hold that
prima facie, the respondents have committed contempt of Court. Nothing can be more
serious than public statements calculated to diminish or destroy public confidence in
courts of justice, and no offence calls for or deserves more swift or more summary
punishment.
2 2 . It may be relevant here to recall that the freedom of press has always been
regarded as an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of Government. It has been
regarded as a necessity for the mental health and the well being of the society. It is also
considered necessary for the full development of the personality of the individual. It is
said that without the freedom of press truth cannot be attained. The freedom of press is
part of the freedom of speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. Thus, the freedom of press is included in the fundamental right of
freedom of expression. The freedom of press is regarded as the "mother of all other
liberties" in a democratic society. Further the importance and the necessity of having a
free press in a democratic constitution like ours was immensely stressed in several
landmark judgments of the Apex Court e.g. Indian Express Newspapers v Union of
India MANU/SC/0273/1985 : AIR1986SC872 AP Sen J, (as he then was) described the

24-05-2021 (Page 11 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

right to freedom of press as a pillar of individual liberty which has been unfailingly
guarded by the Courts. But why the "mother" is acting like a step mother to judiciary is
baffling.
23. It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is indispensable to
the functioning of a true democracy. In a democratic set up there has to be an active
and intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and affairs of their community
as well as the State. It is their right to be kept informed about current political, social,
economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of the day
in order to enable them to consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way
in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its
functionaries. To achieve this objective the people need a clear and truthful account of
events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own comments and
viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their further course of action. The
primary function, Therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective
information of all aspects of the country's political, social, economic and cultural life. It
has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding
public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here
that Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography has stated that one of the objectives of the
newspaper is to understand the proper feelings of the people and give expression to the
another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is to
fearlessly express popular defects. It Therefore turns out that the press should have the
right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. But it has to be remembered
that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in
all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would
amount to an uncontrolled license. If it were wholly free even from reasonable
restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be
misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the
element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an
organized society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and
responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other
things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown
open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false
or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of law. (See. In re Harijai
Singh and another, MANU/SC/2071/1996 : 1997CriL J58 ) The editor of a newspaper
or a journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and
publications for the simple reasons that his utterances have a far greater circulation and
impact than the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print,
they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are
essential even for preservation of the freedom of the press itself. To quote from the
report of Moons Lopez to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations" If it is
true that human progress is impossible without freedom, then it is no less true that
ordinary human progress is impossible without a measure of regulation and discipline.
It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with
accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate
evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news
item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive
without any false and distorted expression.
24. At this juncture, the observations of the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer
vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee MANU/SC/0771/1995 : (1995)5SCC457comes
to mind. It was, inter alia, observed as follows:

24-05-2021 (Page 12 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

 "The Advocates Act, 1961 gave autonomy to a Bar Council of a State or Bar
Council of India and Section 6(1) empowers them to make such action deemed
necessary to set their house in order, to prevent fall in professional conduct and
to punish the incorrigible as not befitting the noble profession apart from
admission of the advocates on its roll. Section 6(1)(c) and rules made in that
behalf. Section 9, 35, 36, 36B and 37 enjoin it to entertain and determine cases
of misconduct against advocates on its roll. The members of the judiciary are
drawn primarily and invariably from the bar at different levels. The high moral,
ethical and professional standards among the members of the Bar are
preconditions even for high ethical standards of the Bench. Degeneration
thereof inevitably has its eruption and tends to reflect the other side of the
coin. The Bar Council, Therefore, is enjoined by the Advocates Act to maintain
high moral, ethical and professional standards which of late is far from
satisfactory. Their power under the Act ends thereat and extends no further.
Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits discussion by the members of
Parliament of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of High Court
in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to
the President praying for the removal of the Judge as provided under article
124(4) and (5) and in the manner laid down under the Act, the Rules and the
rules of business of Parliament consistent therewith. By necessary implication,
no other forum or a platform is available for discussion of the conduct of a
Judge in the discharge of his duties as a Judge of the Supreme Court or the
High Court, much less a Bar Council or group of practicing advocates. They are
prohibited to discuss the conduct of a Judge in the discharge of his duties or to
pass any resolution in that behalf."
25. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that any one who intends to tarnish
the image of judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking the
reputation of Judges, the ultimate victim is the institution. The day the consumer of
justice loss faith in the institution that would be the darkest day for mankind. The
importance of judiciary need no reiteration. It was fairly accepted at the bar that in the
past whenever there was any attack on the press, they have rushed to the Courts and
have described the judiciary as their saviour. It is strange that the very institution which
has come to its rescue, has been attacked thereby corroding its credibility. A messiah
suddenly finds himself treated as a pariah. A common man may start losing confidence
in judiciary by saying that the judgment delivered in his case is not above board, and
"condonable limit" of publication Mulgonkar's case (supra) would be exceeded. Ultimate
sufferer would be the society.
2 6 . It has been rightly submitted by learned Attorney General and learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that an apology cannot be accepted unless it is really
intended to be an apology and not merely a pretext to escape the consequences. An
apology must be genuine, honest and bona fide. inspire of the seriousness and gravity
of the act of the respondents in publishing the article in question, we would not like to
sound as vindictive or revengeful. Unconditional apologies tendered by the respondents
at the outset, as noted above, deserve acceptance. The respondents are journalists of
standing and repute. We have two reason to doubt their bona fides about tendering the
apologies nor have we any reason to doubt the genuineness of apologies. The
respondents have expressed a feeling of remorse. In the fact and circumstances of the
case with particular reference to the respondents before us acceptance of apology will
comparatively be better atonement for the respondents for their impugned act as
compared to award of punishment in the form of fine or imprisonment or both. We
accept the apologies offered. We feel it necessary to point out that proper care and

24-05-2021 (Page 13 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

caution should have been exercised by the contemners before the publication. If there is
recurrence of the amiss either by the respondents or any other person it shall be sternly
dealt with. News reports have much in common with the person in the generic shooting
accident who "didn't know the gun was loaded". News and commentary on the printed,
page on the television, and over radio take unexpected turns that every reader or viewer
finds surprising, shocking or distressing. The loaded gun analogy springs from three
key points. They are:- (1) News content is not the same as news influence, (2) The way
news is collected helps to determine what is reported, and (3) Potential consequences
of coverage are weak criteria for news decision-making. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondent contemners has undertaken that an appropriate apology shall be
published if so directed. Let the same be published within two weeks from today in five
national dailies, published in English, and copies thereof be filed in the Registry of this
Court within three days of such publication. If it is not done the matter shall be listed
for further orders. If it is done, the matter shall be treated as closed. The petitions are
accordingly disposed of. The interim direction regarding sale/or other modes of disposal
of the concerned issue of the magazine without the offending article is made absolute.
Before parting with the cases, we feel it proper to record our appreciation for the fair
manner in which learned counsel for the parties have assisted the Court in trying to give
a decent burial to the unwarranted controversy.
A.D. Singh, J.
I have gone through the judgment proposed by the Hob'ble Chief Justice. While I
respectfully agree with his Lordship's view that the respondents have committed
contempt of court by the publication in question, I have not been able to persuade
myself to accept the apologies of the contemners.
The publication starts with the caption "Judged out!". It professes that the judges have
been evaluated by fifty senior lawyers. According to the publication the alleged
evaluators constitute nearly ten percent of the total strength of the Delhi High Court
Bar. It mentions that it is not meant to cast any aspersion on the competence of the
judiciary, but is a small and humble attempt to hold a mirror to it. Quite contrary to the
assertion, in the so called mirror it depicts a distorted image of the judges of this court.
To compound the impudence it attempts to pass on the profanity as factually true by
stating that "it might make some judges uncomfortable, but truth sometimes does".
The publication is a scurrilous attack on the credibility and competence of the judges of
this Court. It undermines the majesty, respect and dignity of the court and tends to
create an apprehension in the minds of people regarding the integrity and ability of the
judges. The publication also tends to erode the authority of the court. It, Therefore,
clearly constitutes contempt of the court. In case the judiciary is to perform its duties
and functions effectively, its dignity and authority must be respected and protected at
all costs. The Supreme Court in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, MANU/SC/0471/1995 :
1995CriL J3994 , while highlighting the rationale behind the purpose for which the
superior courts are entrusted with the power to punish for their contempt observed as
follows:-
"39. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is
the guardian of the rule of law. Hence judiciary is not only the third pillar, but
the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where here
there is a written Constitution which is above all individuals and institutions
and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior courts, the
judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all

24-05-2021 (Page 14 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

 individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act
within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the
land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between
the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the
society. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and
remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity
and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.
Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and
with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for
this purpose that the courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of
punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the courts, which
tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by
scandalising them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without
fear or favor. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to
vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally
attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the
administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the
confidence of the people in its ability, to deliver fearless and impartial justice.
When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection
and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working,
the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded."
In E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. t. Narayan Nambiar MANU/SC/0071/1970 :
1970CriL J1670 , the Supreme Court held that maintenance of dignity of the courts is
one of the cardinal principles of the rule of law and when criticism results in lowering
the dignity of the courts, it must be held repugnant and punished. It was further held
that no court can look with equanimity on a publication which may have a tendency to
interfere with the administration of justice.
The publication in question scandalises the judges. It attempts to rob the High Court of
its honour and prestige and thus tends to shatter the faith and confidence of the public
in the judiciary and the administration of justice and majesty of law. The contemners
cannot be allowed to tamper with the stream of justice which must flow pure and
unhindered. Therefore, the conduct of the contemners cannot be ignored. At this stage
it may be pointed out that the power of contempt is not being exercised to vindicate the
honour of the individual judges who are attacked or scandalised, but is being exercised
to uphold the majesty of law. This power flows from Article 215 of the Constitution as a
necessary attribute of a superior court of record (see Delhi Judicial Service Association,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others, MANU/SC/0478/1991 :
1991CriLJ3086 . The fact that such a power is comprised in the Constitution itself shows
the importance attached to the dignity and respect of the high courts. The basic
objective of the press is to give news, views, comments and information on matters of
public interest in an accurate and fair manner. The freedom of press under the
Constitution is not higher than the freedom of a citizen and is subject to the restrictions
imposed under Article 19(2) thereof. So long as the freedom of press and liberty of
speech does not transgress these restrictions and does not impinge upon the dignity of
the courts, it must prevail. But in the grab of the freedom of press the reputation of the
judiciary cannot be permitted to be destroyed. 'Wahindia' appears to be a new
periodical. By indulging in sensationalism at the cost of the prestige of the judiciary the
contemners may succeed in increasing its circulation but that is a very heavy price to
pay. The judiciary is the bulwark of out democratic set up and the greatest guarantee to
an ordinary citizen against excesses of the State, individuals and authorities. the entire
democratic fabric of the country is liable to crumble if the respect for the judiciary is

24-05-2021 (Page 15 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

undermined.
The contemners have acted as if they are above law. They cannot be allowed to commit
contempt of court in the grab of criticism. In case such a trend is allowed to grow, the
respect and authority commanded by the courts of law, which is essential for
dispensation of justice and smooth functioning of the courts, will suffer. Such
publication have the lethal effect of discrediting the courts and destabilizing the system
of administration of justice thereby adversely affecting the rights and freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution. If the judiciary is to protect and promote rule of law and
resolve disputes effectively, the dignity and authority of the courts must be upheld
otherwise the rule of law will perish giving way to the rule of the jungle. The duties and
functions of the court are of a very delicate nature. when parties and their counsel seek
the intervention of a court for resolution of a dispute, each side may think it has a cast
iron case. But both the sides cannot win. The side which finds the decision to be against
its interests cannot be allowed to ascribe motives to the court. Disgruntled elements
cannot be permitted to tarnish the image of the judiciary. In order to protect the rule of
law we cannot allow the trust and confidence of people in the judiciary to be forfeited in
this manner.
The publication is not only insulting but is also reckless in nature. This is so because of
a variety of reasons. Firstly, fifty so called unnamed senior lawyers do not constitute ten
percent of the total strength of the Delhi High Court Bar. The Delhi High Court Bar, as is
apparent from its directory, consists of more than four thousand members. Secondly,
the publication loses sight of the fact that the Advocates Act, 1961, classifies legal
practitioners as Senior Advocates and Advocates. Senior Advocates are to ones who are
designated as such by the Supreme Court and the High Courts on the basis of their
ability, standing at the bar or special knowledge and experience in law. There is no
category of 'senior lawyers'. We have not been told who the senior lawyers' were who
allegedly acted as evaluators and what was the criteria used to determine their
seniority. Thirdly, in the apologies filed by the respondents it is stated that once the
date was tabulated, no further verification was carried out to ascertain the correctness
of the results. The apologies tendered by the contemners reveal that the contemners did
not satisfy themselves about the correctness of the alleged appraisal of the judges. In
this view of the matter it was highly improper on the part of the contemners to suggest
in the publication that what was stated therein was true.
While there is no doubt that healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of the
democracy and the freedom of press is guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution; at the same time this freedom is not unbounded or without a parameter. It
is subject to the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution which, inter alia,
includes law relating to contempt of court. The freedom of press comes to an end when
in encroaches upon the honour of the court. In Re: Harijai Singh and another and In Re:
Vijay Kumar, MANU/SC/2071/1996 : 1997CriL J58 , the Supreme Court while
emphasizing that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of a true
democracy, at the same time it struck a note of caution that the freedom of press is not
absolute, unlimited and unfettered, and the press is not free to disregard its duty to be
responsible. Looking to the publication in question its is manifest that the contemners
have disregarded their duty to be responsible and fair. In the matter of Hiren Bose,
Contemner, MANU/WB/0001/1969 : AIR1969Cal1 , it was held by the Calcutta High
Court that though the press is free to criticise the judicial system under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution, it cannot commit contempt of court under the cover of criticism.
Again in Lok Nath Mishra v. State of Orissa, 1999 Crl. L.J. 4719, the Orissa High Court
held that it was in public interest to ensure that allegations which are scandalous in

24-05-2021 (Page 16 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

nature, or tend to scandalise, or tend to lower the authority of a court are not
permitted. It also observed that in a democracy an independent judiciary is to function
without fear or favor and its strength is the faith of the people in its impartiality and can
dour. It seems to me that any injury to that faith of the people by a publication or by an
oral utterance amounts to contempt of court and must be put down in case the
institution has to be saved from that injury.
The fall out of the publication in question, though this is not being held against the
contemners, is that some of the newspapers carried articles on the assumption that
what was published by the contemners was true. This was not objective reporting, but
this may have served the cause of solidarity of the press. Some of the article while
justifying the offending publication called it a 'fair criticism'. Some even went to the
extent of calling the action initiated by us 'reprehensible'. The contemners themselves
have now admitted before us that they did not subscribe to any statement or expression
of opinion in the publication and in particular the appraisal of the judges of this Court.
They have also admitted that the appraisal in the publication is not the representative
view of the whole of the bar. Therefore, it was unfair and unreasonable on the part of
those who were swept by sympathy wave to have acted in such an irresponsible
manner. I will, however, leave this aspect for their introspection.
The Press Council has enunciated guide-lines to regulate to conduct of the press. At this
stage it would be convenient to set out some of the norms of journalistic conduct:-
"xx xx xx
Accuracy & Fairness
1) The press shall eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless,
graceless, misleading or distorted material. All sides of the core issue
or subject should be reported. Unjustified rumours and surmises should
not be set forth as facts.
Pre-publication Verification
2) On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit
containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should
check with due care and attention its factual accuracy - apart from
other authentic sources with the person or the organisation concerned
to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the
same with due amendments in the report where necessary. In the event
of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect should be
appended to the report.
xx xx xx"
It appears to me that these guide-lines have been clearly violated by the contemners.
They passed on conjectures and surmises as truth. The publication in question was not
only published in 'Wahindia' but it was also put on the website to be viewed and down
loaded by the world at large. The pernicious effect of the article goes beyond the
frontiers of this country. Surely the freedom of press does not extend to scandalising
the court and bringing it into disrepute. During the pendency of the proceedings the
articles published supporting the cause of the contemners show the extent to which the
freedom of press has been misused. It is well settled that once the court proceedings
have begun the media has no role to play in the administration of justice. But even this

24-05-2021 (Page 17 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

principle was thrown to the winds. We cannot allow the course of justice to be deflected
by succumbing to the fear of bad publicity. It is needless to point out that the
publications which are made to influence the result of a case also amount to contempt
of court. It is only after a judgment is delivered that the press can criticise the same,
but the criticism must be fair and within the bounds of law. It cannot impute motives to
the judge rendering the judgment. The press has to be reminded that the smooth
functioning of the legal system is as important as freedom of press. While it is correct
that a judge dispensing justice must possess impeccable integrity, at the same time no
one is allowed to question his/her integrity in a casual manner and on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. A judge can function only if he/she has the moral authority.
In case his/her reputation is sullied by unfounded allegations he/she can never exercise
that authority.
In the circumstances, a question arises as to whether the law should sit limply and
helplessly and be a mere spectator to the damage caused to the administration of
justice. To my mind it must not be so. It should act firmly and decisively since the
publication has the propensity to deter people from placing reliance upon the court and
tends to shake their faith in the judiciary. The instant case is the rarest of the rare cases
in which the court must intervene to protect the faith of the people who have abiding
interest in the administration of justice.
The publication shows that the contemnors were conscious were conscious of the fact
that the publication amounts to contempt of court. The offending publication was not
made by the contemnors in ignorance of the consequences. This is evident from the
following snide remarks contained therein:-
"....As even staring too hard at 'The Lordships' could amount to contempt of
court, we at Wahindia decided it was time to bring into open the impression
senior lawyers have while facing them..."
From the above it is clear that it was not an innocent publication. It appears to me that
the apologies have been tendered to avoid punishment and are not genuine. Besides,
contempt of court committed by the contemners is of a grave nature and tends to
substantially interfere with the due course of justice.
In the circumstances, Therefore, I am unable to accept the apologies of the contemners.
The apologies, however, can be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the
contemners are directed to appear in court on a date to be fixed by the Registry for
further proceedings.
Sd/A.D. Singh, J.
Om Prakash Dwivedi, J.
I have had the benefit of pursuing an enlightening and erudite judgment recorded by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice holding that the impugned article published in a magazine
"Wah India" issue April 16-30,2001 under the caption "Judged out" is a scurrilous
attack on the integrity and efficiency of Judges of this Court which scandalises and
lowers the authority of the Court and interferes with the administration of justice and
this act of the respondents amounts to criminal contempt of the Court within the
meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. I respectfully agree with
the view taken by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in this regard.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have tendered un-conditional and unqualified apologies at the

24-05-2021 (Page 18 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

threshold by filing affidavits dated 2nd May, 2001 and 9th May 2001. In their affidavits
dated 2nd May, 2001 the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have deposed that they do not
subscribe to any opinion expressed in the said survey and in subsequent affidavits
dated 9th May, 2001 they have further deposed that the appraisal in the impugned
article is not the representative view of the whole Bar. Neither any verification was
carried out to ascertain the correctness of the result nor was it so suggested in the
impugned article. It is further averred that the similar articles are published abroad and
that they did not realise that it could be regarded as derogatory to the judiciary. But
now they realise that there has been a serious error on their part and hence these un-
conditional apologies. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the respondents have realised their mistake and have
tendered un-conditional apologies at the very threshold so the same should be accepted
and the matter need not be pressed further. Shri Soli Sorabji, learned Attorney General
of India, submitted that the apology can be accepted if it is genuine and honest and
there is no attempt to justify the contents of or the opinion expressed in the impugned
article. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Anand, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. B.L.Wadhera, advocate, who appeared in person as petitioner contended that
the apologies tendered by the contemners are neither genuine nor honest or bonafide
and have been offered only as a poly to escape the punishment so the same should not
be accepted.
Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the
learned counsel and learned Attorney General of India and also to the contents of article
in question, I am firmly of the view that the apologies tendered by the contemners are
neither genuine nor made in good faith. An apology can be said to be honest if it is
made in good faith. A genuine apology would mean that the respondents have realised
their mistake and are really repentant, contrite for their conduct. The article in question
can be read in two parts. The first part consists of findings of the alleged survey which
are contained in the tabular form. The second part consists of the editorial comments
thereon at the end of the article which reads as under:-
"The survey is by no means an attempt to cast any aspersion on the
competence of the judiciary, but is a small and humble attempt to hold a mirror
to it. It might make some judges uncomfortable, but truth sometimes does. We
would imagine it should be an eye opener to some of the judges to learn what
lawyers who appear before them every day, think of them. As even staring too
hard at 'The Lordships' could amount to contempt of court, we at wahindia
decided it was time to bring into open the impression senior lawyers have while
facing them. Though the survey did come up with certain startling findings, it
would be justified only if it can bring about some meaningful changes in the
functioning of the higher judiciary."
The first part purports to be an index of the opinion of the Bar as revealed from the
alleged survey whereas the second part re-produced above is the editorial comments
thereon. It is the second part namely 'editorial comments' which belies respondents'
assertion in the affidavit that they do not subscribe to the view expressed in the said
article.
If the respondents did not subscribe to the opinion expressed in the article how could
they "hold a mirror" to us? Their further assertion that "it might make some judges
uncomfortable but truth sometime does" amply demonstrates that what has been
published was believed to be true. Knowing fully well that "even staring too hard at 'The
Lordship' could amount to contempt of Court", they dared us to look into the mirror and

24-05-2021 (Page 19 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla

face the uncomfortable truth. Although in the comments re-produced above, it is
asserted that the survey is by no means an attempt to cast aspersion and this has been
re-asserted in the affidavits dated 2nd May, 2001, what they have done by publishing
the alleged survey and the editorial comments thereon is exactly the opposite. The
impugned article and the editorial comments thereon were written with a free mind. It is
not the respondents case that the impugned article was written or the editorial
comments were made under any sort of pressure. By making these comments they have
already given their verdict on the results of the survey with an open mind after
evaluating the data and believing it to be true. it is their own opinion expressed with a
free mind. Therefore, it does not lie in their mouth now to say that they do not
subscribe to the opinion expressed in the impugned article or there was no attempt to
cast any aspersion on the judges of this Court. The editorial comments belie their
assertion that the apology is being tendered in good faith.
Another important feature which need to be taken note of in this regard is that in the
impugned article appearing at page 044 of the aforesaid magazine, the caption has been
given as "Judged out" but at page 2 which enumerates the contents of the issue, the
caption given reads as "...ges on their integrity" with an exhortation "get ready for the
party". This indicates that the original caption was intended to convey that the article in
question is a judgment on our integrity. This is amply proved from the fact that the
Hon'ble Judges have been individually graded on personal integrity, depth in law and
quality of judgment delivered. In face of all this, it is not possible to believe that the
apologies have been tendered in good faith. Proper analysis and understanding of the
contents and tenor of the article in question is enough to prove this. No proof or any
precedential authority is needed to justify this conclusion of mine.
On the point of genuineness also, the apologies do not impress me. Mere parrot like
repetition of regrets in almost identically worded affidavits does not convince me that
the respondents are really remorseful or repentant. Even on the last date of hearing
there was an attempt to justify the offending publication with reference to some
material. We would like to examine it and face it. When there is an attempt to justify
the contents of the offending article even after filing affidavits of apology such
apologies can be said to be anything but genuine. I am, Therefore, inclined to agree
with the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Attorney General that it is only
a ploy to escape the punishment.
Accordingly, I hold that the apologies tendered by the respondents-contemners are
neither genuine nor made in good faith. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the
same. I order accordingly.
Sd/Om Prakash Dwivedi, J
We unanimously hold that prima facie contempt has been committed by the
respondents. However, so far as acceptance of apologies is concerned, in view of the
conclusions of the majority, the directions contained in paragraph No. 26 are to be
carried out.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

24-05-2021 (Page 20 of 20) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Shimla