Mukherjea, J. - (1.) THIS appeal which has come before us, on special leave, is directed against a judgment of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dated 5th May, 1950, by which the learned judges held the appellants guilty of contempt of court; and although the apology tendered by the appellants was accepted, they were directed to pay the costs of the respondent State.
(2.) THE appellants, six in number, are members of the Executive Committee of the District Bar Association at Muzaffarnagar within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the contempt proceedings were started against them, because of certain resolution passed by the Committee of 20th April, 1949, copies of which were forwarded to the District Magistrate and other officers by a covering letter signed by appellant No. 1 as President of the Bar Association. To appreciate the contentions that have been raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to state a few relevant facts. The resolutions which form the basis of the contempt proceedings relate to the conduct of two judicial officers, both of whom functioned at Muzaffarnagar at the relevant time. One of them named Kanhaya Lal Mehra are a Judicial Magistrate while the other named Lalta Prasad was a Revenue Officer. It is said that the first appellant as President of the Bar Association received numerous complaints regarding the way in which these officers disposed of cases in their courts and behaved towards the lawyers and the litigant public. The Executive Committee of the Association took the matter in hand and, after satisfying themselves that the complaints were legitimate and well -founded, they held a meeting on 20th April, 1949, in which the following resolutions were passed : - Resolved that - "Whereas the members of the Association have had ample opportunity of forming an opinion of the judicial work of Sri Kanhaya Lal, Judicial Magistrate, and Shri Lalta Prasad, Revenue Officer, It is now their considered opinion that the two officers are thoroughly incompetent in law, do not inspire confidence in their judicial work, are given to stating wrong facts when passing orders and are over -bearing and discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike. Besides the above -mentioned defects common to both of them, other defects are separately catalogued as hereunder : - * * * (The complaints against each of the officers separately were then set out under specific heads). Resolved further that copies of the resolution be sent to the Honourable Premier, the Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Government, the Commissioner and the District Magistrate for suitable action; Resolved that the District Magistrate and Collector be requested to meet a deputation of the following in this connection at an early date;" (The names of 5 members who were to form the deputation were then mentioned.)
(3.) IT is disputed that this meeting of the Executive Committee of the Bar Association was held in camera and no non -member was allowed to be present at it. The resolutions were typed out by the President himself and the proceedings were not recorded in the Minute Book of the Association at all. On the following day, that is, on 21st April, 1949, the President sent a copy of the resolutions with a covering letter marked "confidential" to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. Copies of the resolutions were similarly despatched to the Commissioner of the Division, the Chief Secretary and the Premier of Uttar Pradesh. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate was the immediate superior of the officers concerned, and the other three were the higher executive authorities in the official hierarchy. One paragraph of this covering letter contained the following statement : - "Complaints against these officers had been mounting and a stage was reached when the matter had to be taken up formally. The resolution is not only well -considered and unanimous but represents a consensus of opinion of all practitioners in the Criminal and Revenue side.";