Banerjee, J. - (1.) "Darpan" is a weekly newspaper published in the Bengal language. The contemnor, Hiren Bose, is the Editor, Printer and publisher of the weekly, all in one. In the issue of the weekly paper dated September 15, 1967, there appeared an article headed "Demonstration in the High Court. Revolt of the exploited masses against the law in force." At the sitting of the Special Bench on September 19, 1967, then engaged in hearing certain applications against "gherao" practiced by certain labourers against the management and the managerial staff of certain concern, Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate, brought the article to the notice of the Special Bench. The article was also brought to the notice of the Special Bench by Mr. Samiran Sen, Registrar, Original Side of this Court. The article appears to have been written in the context of an exhibition of 'gherao' inside the court room No.1 and the noisy demonstration held inside and outside the court premises by certain persons. Upon reading the article, the Special Bench felt that the article was contumacious in nature and suo motu issued a Rule against the Editor calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dealt with or committed for contempt of court. The Rule was made returnable on September 26, 1967.
(2.) On being served with the Rule, the contemnor appeared before this Court on September 26, 1967, and asked for time to use an affidavit showing cause. The matter was thereupon adjourned till November 6, 1967, that is to say, until the re-opening of this Court after the long holidays. The contemnor did file an affidavit, dated November 4, 1967. In paragraph 1 of the said affidavit he tendered an unqualified apology. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, however, he pleaded the following justification for publishing the article :- "I say that the whole purpose and spirit of the article which appeared in the Bengali Newsweekly 'Darpan' on 15th September, 167 hereinafter referred to as "impugned article" is to focus the attention on the certain inequities of the present legal system which is an inheritance from alien Rule and to show that the entire body of law which although has undergone changes from time to time is not in keeping with the aspiration of the people in general or their needs. I feel that the contemporary agitation all over the world is an expression of popular urge for change and the impugned article, if read in its entirety, has expressed its support for such popular urge and was never intended to show any disrespect or disregard to this Hon'ble Court or the judiciary. I did not intend to lower the dignity, honour and authority of this Hon'ble Court or to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice or to lower this Hon'ble Court in the estimation of the public. I did not intend to criticize the Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court and/or Justice administered by them. Since the impugned article is considered to be disrespectful to this Hon'ble Court I sincerely regret and offer my unqualified, unconditional and genuine apology." Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel for the contemnor also verbally tendered apology on behalf of the contemnor in his presence. When we pointed out to him that paragraph 3 of the affidavit contained a justification, which ill-matched with the apology, Mr. Roy Choudhury prayed for an opportunity to use a second affidavit and to withdraw the first one. Thereupon, we adjourned the matter till to-day. The second affidavit has been filed to-day. Paragraph 2 of the second affidavit reads: "I sincerely and truly regret for writing and publishing the article "High Courtery Bikshov - Prachalita Ainer Birudhe Sosita Janasadharaner Bidroha" in the Bengali Newsweekly 'Darpan' of the 15th September 1967, the official translation whereof has been annexed with the Rule and served upon me. I humbly and sincerely tender my unqualified and unconditional apology."
(3.) Before I deal with the affidavit and the apology tendered by the contemnor, I propose to deal with the article published in 'Darpan'. In my reading, the article has been written in bad taste and is the product of confused thinking. The language used in the article is ill-temperate and disparaging to the dignity of this Court. The article accuses the Chief Justice of this Court, (a) of being a puppet of the law, and (b) of sitting down and getting up (i.e. moving) within the frame-work of a grinding machine meaning the present legal system.;