S.C.PRATAP,J. - (1.) THE subject matter of these contempt petitions moved by a practising advocate are two published interviews of A.R. Antulay, former Chief Minister of this State - one in the issue dated March 10, 1984 of 'Current' (a weekly) and the other in the March 1984 issue of 'Gentleman' a monthly magazine.
(2.) FORCEFUL arguments were advanced on either side and the same were heard in extenso. A number of authorities were also cited. Extensive research was the hall -mark of the professional performance in Court. Our considered conclusion is that while the overwhelming part of the impugned interviews do not in the least invite any breach of the law of contempt, the same cannot with equal confidence be said of a few sharp answers to some questions. These answers could as well have been modulated downwards to neutralise the risk and consequence thereof under the law of contempt. But if, as submitted, the impugned interviews were not pre -verified publications and, therefore, not necessarily printed in the very words of the impromptu answers to the questions posed, the lapse need not necessarily invite action in contempt. Moreover, the impugned interviews are of March 1984 and, as is apparent from the subsequent developments, judicial and otherwise, these have not in the least interfered with or affected or prejudiced the trial or the due course of administration of justice. Nor have these, as contended by the petitioner, created or generated an atmosphere or built up public opinion so as to make it difficult for the Courts to deal with the trial and all its offshoots and ramifications, on their own merits and in accordance with law. Nor have the same acted in any way as a tendency in that behalf. Moreover, the 'Current' interview was in response to its earlier published interview of the original complainant's lawyer Mr. Ram Jethmalani. A case thus of action and re -action being equal and opposite.
(3.) BE all that as it may, we have Antulay's statement on affidavit - I have highest respect for this Hon'ble Court and do not have any intention whatsoever of interfering with the course of justice. And this is reinforced by his further statement made before us through his learned Counsel and embodied herebelow in its entirety in this order: Even as Law Minister of Maharashtra and later as C.M. throughout my social life and political career I have always maintained and upheld the highest traditions as an officer of the Court being myself an Advocate. I have never intended in my life nor shall I any time 'in future even remotely intend to use any expression which is derogatory to the judicial institution, for which I have as a lawyer and a citizen great respect and highest regard. The question of my using any time in future any such language which even remotely can be construed as a constrain or slur on the judicial independence or the judiciary itself will never arise. My own belief being what I have just stated, for me to say that anytime in future I will employ any harsh language which will cast either a doubt or be construed as an attack on the integrity or the uprightness of the judiciary is like saying that I should be indulging in self condemnation being myself a part of the institution as the officer thereof. This should allay all misgivings and render needless any further pursuit of these proceedings. Indeed, after the latter statement supra, the petitioner closed his arguments. And we too in all fairness are inclined to drop these proceedings.;