BASANTA CHANDRA GHOSH ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding has been started against Sri Basanta Chandra Ghosh, an Advocate of this Court, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of an article published in the latest morning edition of the Searchlight, a Patna daily, in its issue of March 8, 1959. The article was published under the caption "Recommendations of Law Commission". The High Court took notice of the article and accordingly the above rule was issued on the 7th of April, 1959. The article deals with certain matters relating to the judicial administration of the High Court. The occasion for the article was the publication of the report of the Law Commission appointed by the Government of India whose report came out duly and was published in the press.

(2.) The writer, who described himself as "Basant Chandra Ghose", made comments on the judicial administration of the High Court in various matters. In some of his comments he referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission with approval and in certain other matters he expressed his disagreement with the recommendations of the Law Commission but, on the whole, the article appeared to the High Court to be an independent animadversion on the judicial administration of the High Court with occasional reference to the recommendations of the Law Commission. In the notice issued to him, the following passages from the article were specifically mentioned as constituting contempt of Court, specially the Patna High Court, although reference was made to the tone of the entire article as being derogatory to the dignity, independence and impartiality of its judicial administration. The impugned passages run thus :

(3.) Sri Basanta Chandra Ghosh appeared in due course but did not file any written statement showing cause against the notice. He stated in answer to a question by the Court that he was not prepared to make any statement beyond saying that he was not guilty. He was asked whether he was the author of the article in question inasmuch as the name of the author of the article published in the Searchlight did not describe him as Advocate or Advocate, Patna High Court, but simply as "Basant Chandra Ghose". Sri Ghosh, however, refused either to admit that he was the author of the article or to say that he was not the author of the article and insisted on maintaining the stand that he would not say anything more than that he was not guilty. A question of procedure, accordingly, came up for consideration to determine whether Sri Basant Chandra Ghosh, Advocate, the alleged conteraner before the Court, was the author of the article which might be done either by the statement OB affidavit of persons from the relevant departments of the Searchlight or by examining them in Court to establish the authorship of the articles. Learned Advocate General suggested that it would be convenient to have some witnesses from the Searchlight examined who dealt with the article at various stages, particularly on the editorial side, so that if Sri Basant Chandra Ghosh thought it proper to cross-examine them he might have a chance to do so, of which he might otherwise be deprived if the statements were made on affidavit by the persons concerned. It is no doubt true that it was an extra-ordinary procedure and a favour shown to Sri Basant Chandra Ghosh considering his position as an Advocate practising in this Court, because in normal circumstances the matter could well have been disposed of on a mere statement on affidavit. It is thus necessary to scrutinise the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case because the primary question to be answered would be whether Sri Basant Chandra Ghosh, Advocate who is being proceeded against, wrote the article in question.