K.S.Varma, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter to be referred to as Act) has been moved by Sri Hari Shanker Jain an Advocate practising in this Court. He has stated in the petition that he read a news item published in Hindustan Times of 1st July, 1982 that Mr. M. H. Beg, former Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, made certain comments on judgments delivered by Mr. H. R. Khanna, former Judge of the Supreme Court and now a candidate for Presidential Election. The petitioner has stated that Hindustan Times has very wide circulation in the country and the comments made by Mr. M. H. Beg which were reported on 1st July, 1982 were uncalled for and unfair. According to the petitioner, the relevant portions which amount to criminal contempt within the meaning of the Act are quoted in para 3 of the application.
(2.) DURING the course of arguments on the petition, the petitioner stated that he proposes to move an application for amendment of the petition. In the application for amendment he has prayed that Sri Khushwant Singh, Editor of Hindustan Times at New Delhi be added as opposite party no. 2 and Dr. G. S. Hansraj on behalf of Hindustan Times Ltd. at Hindustan Times Press, New Delhi to be added as opposite party no. 3. In the amendment application certain allegations were also added in which it was maintained that Hindustan Times published contemptuous statement of Mr. M. H. Beg and hence the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are also guilty of committing contempt within the meaning of the Act. Along with the amendment application the petitioner filed news item which appeared in Hindustan Times on 1st July, 1982. The amendment application has been allowed. The petitioner in this case has appeared in person to argue the case. He has submitted that Mr. M. H. Beg is guilty of Criminal Contempt within the meaning of section 15 of the Act and opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are also guilty for the same as they published contemptuous matter in their newspaper. During the course of arguments the petitioner clearly stated that he brings his case under section 15 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that the article published in the Hindustan Times brings into contempt the entire judiciary of the country. He submitted that under the Constitution of India the judiciary is responsible for upholding the rule of law and by the news item in question an attempt is made by the opposite parties to denigrate the entire judiciary of the country. The petitioner contends that in these circumstances the opposite parties are guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of section 15 of the Act. Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt. "2 (c). "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding : or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
(3.) SECTION 15 of the Act provides that in the case of a criminal contempt, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General, or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The section also provides that every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. During the course of arguments, one of the questions that arise was whether the petitioner can move for contempt under section 15 of the Act without consent in writing of the Advocate General. The petitioner drew our attention to the decision reported in Sri C. K. Daphtary v. Sri O. P. Gupta, 1971 (1) SCC 626. In para 87 and 88 of the report that the Bar is vitally concerned in the maintenance of the dignity of courts and the proper administration of justice. In this view of the matter, the Supreme Court observed, there is nothing in law which prevents the Supreme Court from entertaining a petition at the instance of the Supreme Court Bar Association and three other Advocates of the Court In the instant case, an Advocate of this court has drawn our attention to an article written by Mr. M. H. Beg and published by opposite parties 2 and 3. This Court can, suo- moto and also at the instance of any member of the Bar, take notice of the contempt of court committed by any person. The petitioner also drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in S. K. Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Misra, 1981 AWC 98. By reference to this decision he submitted that if a contemptuous material is brought to the notice of the High Court, it can on its own motion proceed to determine whether a case of contempt has been made out. A perusal of the said decision would also indicate that the Supreme Court has emphasised that normally the High Court should not entertain petition of contempt without consent in writing of the Advocate General but the tenor of judgment also indicate that if the High Court, of its own motion, takes notice of the contemptuous matter then the proceedings so initiated would not be said to be without jurisdiction. In view of the observation of the Supreme Court referred to above and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we have taken notice of the alleged contemptuous matter and proceed to decide whether a case of contempt has been made out or not.;