ADVOCATE GENERAL KERALA Vs. K RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Advocate-General, Kerala, has filed this petition under Ss. 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (Act 70 of 1971) against the respondent, a practising Advocate of this Court. The respondent is also the Managing Editor of a legal journal "the Kerala Law Notes". In the issue of the Kerala Law Notes dated 21-11-1984, (Part 39) an article under the caption "Priority in posting the cases" was written and published by the respondent. According to the Advocate-General the said article contains untrue allegations and averments against the working of the High Court as a whole, and the Judges in particular, and the partiality of the Judges or at least some of them is highlighted, with a view to bring the Judges into contempt in the eyes of the public. It is intended to tarnish the good name of the High Court The imputations have been made recklessly without justification. The readers of the article gain a feeling that there is a "favoured few" among "the advocates who secure any order, and it is a scandalous attack on the integrity and fairness of the Judges of this Court. The article 'as a whole is scandalous' and is intended to lower the authority of the High Court and to undermine the judiciary in the minds of the public and to make them loose faith in the integrity and impartiality of the Judges. So, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to take cognisance of the offence and to punish the respondent, according to law. The respondent has filed two counter-affidavits, dated 1-1-1985 and 7-4-1985. The authorship and publication of the article is not disputed. It is, however, contended that the article in question either read as a whole or in part, does not in any way constitute contempt of court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. After referring to the observations and speeches of a few Judges and jurists in detail, the respondent has concluded that he has only ventured constructive and informed views and the opinion was expressed in good faith. It is the respondent's plea that he has not exceeded permissible limits of criticism and there was no intention at all on his part, to scandalise the Court or the Judges. In the additional counter-affidavit dated 7-4-1985 it is stated that the writing referred to, is a constructive criticism to improve the system and it may be that some of the observations may lead to a different interpretation and some readers have misunderstood the purpose. The respondent has stated that the Court may be pleased to re read his statement, in the light of the clarifications. The respondent has prayed that the proceedings may be kindly terminated.

(2.) In this case notice was ordered in the main petition as early as 4-12-1984. For one reason or other, the case was adjourned from time to time. After few postings, when the case was still part-heard, the respondent filed C. M. P. No. 17803 of 1985 to adjourn all further proceedings of the case, till the disposal of the transfer application filed by him in the Supreme Court in this behalf. The respondent filed affidavits in this Court stating that this Bench should not hear the case as he apprehended that he may not get justice. By order dated 17-7-1985 we adverted, in brief, to all aspects and rejected the prayer for adjournment and posted the case for hearing to 26-7-1985. Since we were told that the transfer petition was being taken up in the Supreme Court soon, we again adjourned the case. The case was heard on 12-8-1985 and the succeeding days. Respondent's counsel Sri T. P. Kelu Nambiar, did not move or press the petition for adjournment (C. M. P. No. 21283 of 1985). Counsel argued the case. Our order dated 17-7-1985 in C. M. P. No. 17803 of 1985 has dealt with the matter, rejecting the respondent's prayer and adverting in brief to the unfounded and baseless allegations made against this Bench on the basis of tell tale circumstances or events and records brought about or created by the respondent after the case became part-heard.

(3.) As observed by us in the order dated 17-7-1985, a party should not be enabled to get a case transferred from one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the same Court or to any other Court by adopting some tactics. The observations of the Supreme Court reported in National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan AIR 1983 SC 759 at pages 760 and 761 , are apposite in this connection.