JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - On the application dated 9-9-1968 of Sri P.C.S. Rao, Magistrate, First Class (Executive), Bargarh .(briefly referred to as the Magistrate) to this Court praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the present 26 contemners, notices far can tempt had been issued against them. On the basis of the allegations against them, these 26 contemners may be divided into different groups far convenience in the manner indicated below: (a) (i) Sri Rajendra Panda, Advocate of the Bargarh Bar who presided aver two meetings of Bargarh Bar association held an 20-6-1968 and 30-7-1968 in which two resolutions imputing dishonesty and lack of integrity in the Magistrate were passed and who delivered a speech in a public meeting held an 1-9-1968 demanding transfer of the Magistrate from Bargarh. (ii) Sri Arabinda Das, Advocate, Bargarh who as Secretary of the Bargarh Bar Association attended the Bar Association meetings referred to a have and communicated the resolutions of the said two meetings to various authorities and who proposed the resolution passed in the public meeting held an 1-9-1968. (b) (i) Sri Ambika Charan Sharma, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the news magazine Sata Kahile Chhati Fate who in the issue of the said magazine dated 24-11-1967, published the news item containing some allegations against the Magistrate and also addressed the public meeting held on 1-9-1968 strongly criticising the Magistrate as reported in the newspaper, Matrubhumi, in its issue dated 4-9-1968; (ii) Sri Surendra Mohanty, Editor of the Oriya daily newspaper, Kalinga, for the publication of the news in the said paper on 4-9-1968 relating to the public meeting held at Bargarh on 1-9-1968; and Sri Bankim Chandra Das, Publisher and Printer of the said Kalinga; (iii) Sri Sriharsa Misra, Editor of the local newspaper, Prajatantra, dated 4-9-1968 in which the news relating to the public meeting held on 1-9-1968 at Bargarh was published; and Sri Narendra Chandra Pradhan, Printer and Publisher of the said Prajatantra; (iv) Sri Gour Chandra Rout, Editor of the local news paper Matrubhumi dated 4-9-1968 in which the news relating to the public meeting held on 1-9-1968 at Bargarh was published; and Sri Ram Chandra Kar, Printer and Publisher thereof. (c)(i) Sri Hariram Agarwalla, Proprietor of New Art Press, Bargarh who published a pamphlet dated 30-8-1968 containing allegations against the aforesaid Magistrate purporting to have been issued on behalf of the President and members of the Bargarh Bar Association; (ii) Sri Gourhari Bhoi, Clerk of Shri D. Kar, Advocate, Bargarh; (iii) Sri B.B. Sahu, clerk of Sri D.M. Das, Advocate, Bargarh. Sri Bhoi and Sri Sahu are alleged to have announced over the mike on 30-8-1968 the contents of the aforesaid pamphlet purporting to have been issued by the President and members of the Bargarh Bar Association; (d)(i) Sri Satchidananda Misra who convened and addressed the public meeting on 1-9-1968 and proposed a resolution in the said meeting demanding transfer of the Magistrate; (2) Sri Ramkrishna Misra who presided over the said public meeting; (3) Sri Purusottam Sharma, (4) Sri Bhabani Shankar Naik, (5) Sri Harihar Das, (6) Sri Gopalkrishna Misra, (7) Sri Lokanath Misra, (8) Sri Parikhit Satpathy, (9) Sri Madhab Mohapatra, (10) Sri Haraprasad Naik. Nos. (3) to (10) are Advocates who attended the aforesaid public meeting and delivered speeches demanding transfer of the Magistrate. (11) Sri Sadananda Panigrahi, Secretary, Samasya Samadhan Samiti, Bargarh; (12) Sri Srinivas Agarwalla, Proprietor, Narasingha Trading Company Bargarh; (13) Sri Purna Chandra Sastry, Kaviraj; (14) Sri Madhusudan Patnaik, Student, Bargarh Panchayat College. Nos. (11) to (14) attended the said public meeting and delivered speeches. 2. The circumstances in which the present proceeding has been initiated may briefly be stated as follows: Sri P.C.S. Rao was functioning as a Magistrate, First Class (Executive), Bargarh since 19-10-1966 and was dealing with matters under the preventive sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The members of the Bar Association at Bargarh were appearing in his Court. Contemners Sri Rajendra Panda and Sri Arabinda Das, Advocates were respectively the President and the Secretary of the said Bar Association. The members of the Association passed two resolutions one on 20-6-1968 and the other on 30-7-1968, wherein they charged the Magistrate with corrupt practices and condemned him by saying that his attitude, conduct and behaviour were not conducive to the maintenance of the dignity of the Court and that appearance of lawyers in his Court was of no assistance to the litigant public. In the resolution of the latter date, the members of the Bar Association decided not to appear in the Court of the Magistrate. In the resolution of the latter date, the members of the Bar Association decided not to appear in the Court of the Magistrate. Copies of the resolutions were sent to the higher authorities. Subsequent to the passing of the two resolutions, the Association published a pamphlet saying that justice in the Court of the Magistrate had become a marketable commodity and as all attempts of the members of the Bar for redress had failed, they boycotted his Court. The pamphlet further went on to say that as the said boycotting was going against the interest of the litigant public, it was necessary that the situation should be tackled by the members of the public for which there would be a meeting of the public on 1-9-1968. In pursuance to this notice circulated through the pamphlet, a public meeting was held on 1-9-1968 at Bargarh presided over by contemner Sri Ramkrishna Misra. Many of the other contemners took part in the meeting either by delivering speeches or by proposing or seconding the resolutions passed in that meeting. Reports about the meeting and the resolutions passed therein were published in the daily news paper, viz : Matrubhumi, Kalinga and Prajatantra. Prior to the meeting of the Bargarh Bar Association, a news scandalising the Magistrate had also been published in the newspaper Sata Kahile Chhati Fate of which contemner Ambika Charan Sharma was the Editor, Printer and Publisher. Contemner Hariram Agarwalla is alleged to have published the pamphlet in his press and contemners Gourhari Bhoi and B.B. Sahu are alleged to have proclaimed the contents of the pamphlet to the public on 30-8-1968. The Magistrate brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of this Court by an application in which he prayed for starting contempt proceedings against the contemners. It was upon this application that contempt notices were issued against the contemners calling upon them to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. In pursuance to the notices of contempt, most of the contemners have showed cause. 4. The causes shown by Sri Rajendra Panda and Sri Arabinda Das are substantially the same. According to them, the meetings of the Bar Association in which the two impugned resolutions were passed were closed door meetings. The resolutions were not released to the press. 3. In pursuance to the notices of contempt, most of the contemners have showed cause. 4. The causes shown by Sri Rajendra Panda and Sri Arabinda Das are substantially the same. According to them, the meetings of the Bar Association in which the two impugned resolutions were passed were closed door meetings. The resolutions were not released to the press. They were passed with the sole object of upholding the dignity, reputation and prestige of the Court and for restoring public confidence in the administration of justice. The members of the Bar who attended the two meetings were conscious that nothing should be done to obstruct the course of justice. According to the contemners, the Bar Association owes a solemn duty and responsibility to uphold the dignity of the Court and to maintain the confidence of the litigating people in the administration of justice. When allegations of corrupt practices were receive by the members of the Bar Association, they in a meeting held on 4-11-1967 discussed them and it was decided that the President and the Secretary of the Association along with Sri R. B. Misra would meet the higher authorities on deputation. Pursuant to this decision, the deputation met on 30-11-1967 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bargarh who gave the deputation to understand that the Magistrate would be transferred. Thereafter, the Bar Association in a meeting held on 2-12-1967 passed a resolution that direct action was not necessary and matters should wait to enable the Sub-Divisional Officer to effectuate his promise. In December, 1967, the deputation of the Bar again met Sri S. Kanungo District Magistrate of Sambalpur who assured them that he would take prompt action after making necessary enquiries. Within a fortnight thereafter all criminal cases from the file of the Magistrate were transferred to the file of Sri D. Naik, another Magistrate who dealt with them for two months. Thereafter, Sri D. Naik went on casual leave for four days and in the meantime Sri S. Kanungo, District Magistrate was transferred from Sambalpur. During these four days when Sri D. Naik was on leave, all the criminal cases were again re-transferred to the file of the Magistrate for administrative reasons. Thereafter, Sri D. Naik went on casual leave for four days and in the meantime Sri S. Kanungo, District Magistrate was transferred from Sambalpur. During these four days when Sri D. Naik was on leave, all the criminal cases were again re-transferred to the file of the Magistrate for administrative reasons. This move by the authority is attributed by the contemners to the fact that as the Magistrate was related to Sri Ramsheshya, an important member of the then Council of Ministers of the State of Orissa, the latter intervened to bring about a re-transfer of the cases. After the Magistrate took charge of the criminal cases once again, allegations of corrupt practices were received by the members of the Bar against him. Hence, again a closed door meeting of the members of the Bar was convened on 20-6-1968 and one of the impugned resolution was passed and copies thereof were sent to the authorities for necessary action. Thereafter, the members of the Bar waited for some time with the hope that the authorities would take steps in the matter, but when no action was taken on the basis of the resolution dated 20-6-1968, in another closed door meeting, the members of the Bar passed the second impugned resolution resolving to boycott the Magistrate's Court. Thereafter, a delegation of the members of the Bar met some Ministers but without any effect. All attempts having ?ailed, a public meeting was called at Bargarh on 1-9-1968, which was attended by the President, Secretary and some other members of the local Bar and they are before this Court as contemners. It is said in the show-cause that when the Bar failed in its attempt, the citizens of the area took up the cause and demanded transfer of the Magistrate in that public meeting. The members of the Bar who spoke in the meeting did not say anything which would amount to contempt of Court. Though none of the contemners denies having spoken at the said meeting it is asserted that they do not remember what exactly they spoke. In these circumstances, it is said that there has been no contempt and the proceeding be dropped. 5. Contemner Hariram Agarwalla denies to have printed the pamphlet giving notice of the public meeting to be held on 1-9-1968. 6. In these circumstances, it is said that there has been no contempt and the proceeding be dropped. 5. Contemner Hariram Agarwalla denies to have printed the pamphlet giving notice of the public meeting to be held on 1-9-1968. 6. Contemner Satchidananda Misra although admits to have attended the public meeting on 1-9-1968 denies to have convened the meeting and to have forwarded a copy of the proceedings of the meeting under his signature to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bargarh. He says that he is not able to recollect what he said in the meeting. 7. Contemner Ramkrishna Misra admits to have presided over the meeting held on 1-9-1968. He takes the plea that he does not remember what the speakers in the meeting had said and if their speeches amounted to contempt of Court. 8. Contemner B.B. Sahu says that (sic) does not remember to have announced a bout the meeting to be held on 1-9-1968 and that he has not seen any pamphlet. 9. Contemners Purusottam Sharma, Bhabani Shankar Naik, Harihar Das, Gopalkrishna Misra, Loknath Misra, Parikhit Satpathy, Madhab Mohapatra and Haraprasad Naik-all Advocates have taken a stand almost similar to the stand taken by Sri Rajendra Panda and Sri Arabinda Das. 10. Contemners Srinivas Agarwalla, Purna Chandra Shastry and Madhusudan Patnaik although admit to have attended the public meeting say that they do not remember to have spoken anything in the meeting which might amount to contempt of Court. 11. Contemner Surendra Mohanty, Editor of the Kalinga says that as a press man it was his duty to publish the news about the meting held on 1-9-1968 at Bargarh and he published the gist of the resolutions of the meeting. He only did that with a bona fide belief that such an act would not amount to contempt of Court. Regarding contemner Bankim Chandra Das, Printer and Publisher of the local newspaper Kalinga, it is said that he has no responsibility in the matter and he has no discretion to exercise when some news items are published in the news paper. 12. Contemners Sriharsa Misra and Narendra Chandra Pradhan, Editor and Printer and Publisher respectively of the Prajatantra and contemners Gour Chandra Rout and Ram Chandra Kar, Editor and Printer and Publisher respectively of the Matrubhumi have taken a stand almost similar to the stand taken by the Editor of the Kalinga. 13. 12. Contemners Sriharsa Misra and Narendra Chandra Pradhan, Editor and Printer and Publisher respectively of the Prajatantra and contemners Gour Chandra Rout and Ram Chandra Kar, Editor and Printer and Publisher respectively of the Matrubhumi have taken a stand almost similar to the stand taken by the Editor of the Kalinga. 13. All the contemners, except eight, viz, Ambika Charan Sharma, Editor of the news magazines Sata Kahile Chati Fate, Satchidananda Misra, Sadananda Panigrahi, Srinivas Agarwalla, Puma Chandra Shastry, Madhusudan Patnaik, Surendra Mohanty and Bankim Chandra Das have tendered unqualified apology before the hearing concluded. 14. Before dealing with the respective cases of these contemners the law relating to contempt of Court of this type may be recounted. In this case the alleged contempt was committed prior to the coming into force of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Law of contempt is essentially meant to prevent any interference with or obstruction to, administration of justice. Any act which scandalises or lowers the authority of any Court or prejudices or interferes with the course of any judicial proceeding amounts to contempt of Court. The whole object of the law of contempt is to enable the stream of justice to flow evenly and in such manner as would inspire confidence in the common man that he has a remedy for every wrong done to him whoever be the wrong-doer. Therefore, if anybody wrongly makes a reflection on the fair dealing of the Court, his action tends to shake the confidence of the general public in the seat of Justice. Confidence of the public in the Courts established by law is a pre-requisite condition for proper and fair dispensation of justice It follows that one who shakes or attempts to shake that confidence makes himself liable for punishment under the law of contempt. 15. As Wilmot, J. in Rex v. Almon (1765) Wilm 243 pointed out- And whenever men's allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of Justice and in my opinion calls for rapid and immediate action than any other obstruction whatsoever not for the sake of the Judges as private individuals but as they are the channels by which the King's Justice is conveyed to the people. This has remained as the universally accepted approach to the matter. This has remained as the universally accepted approach to the matter. It, however, does not mean that if a particular Judge or Magistrate takes recourse to corrupt practice and sells justice for his own benefit, he can yet enjoy the same immunity to which an honest Judge or a Magistrate is entitled. Necessarily, therefore, a bona fide complaint to higher authorities against a corrupt judicial officer cannot be placed on the same footing as any other reckless act imputing dishonesty against an honest officer of the Judiciary. A bona fide complaint against a corrupt Judge has often to be regarded as a step towards maintaining purity of the administration of justice. Therefore, while remembering that Courts in order to enable them to administer justice in a fair and impartial manner should not be subjected to reckless attacks derogatory to them and which would have the effect of under mining the confidence of the general public in the Judiciary, one should also bear in mind that a corrupt Judicial Officer is not beyond the reach of law and a complaint made bona fide against a particular Judicial Officer has ordinarily to be treated in a manner different from the manner in which motivated and reckless aspersions on the impartiality of another Judicial Officer are treated. The following observation of Lord Atkin in his judgment reported in Andre Paul v. Attorney General AIR 1936 P.C. 141 may be quoted below as affording the appropriate guideline: But whether the authority and position of an individual Judge or he due administration of justice is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way the wrong headed are permitted to err therein provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men. Dealing with a case with similar allegation a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Rama Surat Singh Vs. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men. Dealing with a case with similar allegation a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Rama Surat Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey and Others, has said: The object of the law of contempt is not to provide a cloak for judicial authorities to cover up their inefficiency and corruption or to stifle criticism; made in good faith against such officers. After referring to Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the learned Judges again said: In certain cases, the like the present, the line between 'scandalising the Court' and 'ventilating bona fide grievances against the presiding officer of a Court' is so thin that much will depend upon the circumstances of each case. Having regard to the fact that in public interest some machinery would be available for bringing the corrupt and inefficient officers to book, a bona fide complaint of want of integrity of Judicial Officer made to the appropriate superior authority should not amount to contempt of Court. Such a remedy is very essential for the proper administration of justice itself. 16. We shall now proceed to deal with the stand taken by the contemner. First of all, the two impugned resolution are said to have been passed by the members of the Association into closed door meetings. The stand taken by the contemners that the two meetings were closed door ones and that the resolutions were not released to the Press, but were sent to only authorities for action as members of the Bar felt bona fide that the Magistrate had fallen fro the path of virtue and had taken to corrupt practices has not been challenged before us. Nor has any evidence to establish the contrary been laid. The two resolutions which are the subject matter of contempt notices appear to be bona fide moves on the part of the members of the Bar to redress their grievances against the Magistrate. As such, it cannot be said that merely by passing the said two resolutions any contempt was committed of the Court of the Magistrate. The two resolutions which are the subject matter of contempt notices appear to be bona fide moves on the part of the members of the Bar to redress their grievances against the Magistrate. As such, it cannot be said that merely by passing the said two resolutions any contempt was committed of the Court of the Magistrate. The coming to the sequence of events as narrated by the contemners, we find that at one time on the representation of the members of the Bar, the authorities were good enough to transfer the criminal cases pending in the file of the Magistrate to the Court of Sri D. Naik. This wholesale transfer must have so it is contended and perhaps rightly been on the acceptance of the allegations against the Magistrate to be basically correct. Thereafter, things went on smoothly for some time. It is then that on the intervention of an important member of the Cabinet so goes the assertion of the contemners who was interested in the Magistrate that all the cases which had once been transferred to the file of Sri D. Naik were again re-transferred to the Court of the Magistrate and this was done after the District Magistrate Sri S. Kanungo had been transferred from Sambalpur. Thereafter, the members of the Bar met the Ministers for redress. When all their attempts failed, resort was taken to a public meeting held on 1-9-1968. The actions of the members of the Bar till this date as revealed from the respective cases cannot be said to be attacks derogatory to any Court which had the effect of undermining the confidence of the public at large in the impartial administration of justice. On the other hand we are prepared to hold that the members of the Bar acted in a cool and responsible manner confined their deliberations to their Bar Association; the resolutions through which the consensus opinion of the Association had been expressed were not released to the Press or given any publicity and had been sent only to the administrative superiors of the Magistrate. There was no haste, no contumacy and nothing in the conduct of those who are concerned in the activities up to this stage is indeed open to serious objection. There was no haste, no contumacy and nothing in the conduct of those who are concerned in the activities up to this stage is indeed open to serious objection. Then coming to the incidents which took place in the public meeting and, thereafter, we find that the speakers in the public meeting do not admit that they used the words attributed to them although all of them say that they did make speeches in the meeting. The original resolutions passed in the meeting are not before us. The press copies are only gists of the said resolutions. The press-men contemners say that they as press-men only reported in a nutshell about the public meeting and the resolutions said to have been passed in the said meeting and that they did so under a bona fide belief that such reporting would not amount to contempt of Court. The two clerks who are alleged to have proclaimed the contents of the pamphlet calling for a public meeting deny the allegations against them on affidavit. The owner of the press who is said to have printed the pamphlet also denies that any such pamphlet was ever published in his press. No attempt has been made to prove these facts which are denied by the contemners. That apart, all the contemners, except eight, have tendered unqualified apologies. We find no reason as to why the apologies should not be accepted, particularly keeping in view the events narrated above. Regarding others who have not come forward with any apology, we hold that the allegations made against them have not been satisfactorily proved in face of their denial in their respective counters supported by affidavits. It is a criminal charge and admittedly the burden lay on the other side. Regarding others who have not come forward with any apology, we hold that the allegations made against them have not been satisfactorily proved in face of their denial in their respective counters supported by affidavits. It is a criminal charge and admittedly the burden lay on the other side. Regarding the show cause to Sri Surendra Mohanty, Editor of the Kalinga, although we do not agree with the contention of Sri G.B. Mohanty, counsel for him that as a press-man, this contemner had a right to give publication to any item of news which has the effect of either scandalising or lowering the authority of any Court or prejudicing or interfering with the course of any judicial proceeding or obstructing the administration of justice, the allegations against this contemner when judged in the background of events referred to above do not make out a clear case of contempt and hence, he in our opinion is entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. The alleged events are of 1968. The delay in disposing of this proceeding has been another consideration for our not taking too strict a view of the matter. We cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the members of the Bar had been put into a very delicate position at that point of time. On one side they had the call of the profession, their duty to the clientage and the prestige of the judicial administration to maintain and on the other was the apprehension of being hurled up for contempt of the Court on a review of the materials placed before us we are not in a position to hold that the contemners who consist of members of he Bar and the public behaved with contumacy. 18. In the result, we discharge the contempt notice against the contemners and drop the proceedings against them. In the circumstances, we do not make any order for costs. R.N. Misra, J. 19. I agree.