Judgment :- 1. This application for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971. against two persons. a Priest and an Advocate. arises on a motion made by the Advocate General of Kerala under S.15 of the Act. 2. The 1st respondent. Rev. Fr. K. T. Mathew was a party to a suit. O. S. No. 537 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court. Trivandrum. The 2nd respondent. Major T.P. Francis was his counsel. An interlocutory order passed in that suit was taken in appeal to this Court as C. M. A. 43 of 1984. The appeal was allowed and the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The 1st respondent thereafter through his counsel. the 2nd respondent. filed an application praying that the entire records may be sent to the Supreme Court for issuing fresh directions. In the affidavit filed in support of the application. he stated thus: "I am advised by my counsel to state that the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court are quite meaningless as the compliance or otherwise with the directions cannot be monitored." It was also stated therein thus: "My counsel feels that the judgment of the Division Bench has been brought about by trickery. judicial dishonesty and the maximum of bad faith. He also feels that the judgment has been written with the sole purpose of making the Christians of Kerala feel a sense of estrangement from the other communities of the State. He further feels that the only means now available to get the judgment set aside is by impeaching the judges in Parliament. Otherwise the judiciary. according to him. will be held up to the contempt of the citizens of India. thereby endangering the unity and integrity of the Republic". 3. In support of that application the counsel for the 1st respondent also filed an affidavit in which he stated thus: "I have reasons to believe that Justice Paripoornan had a personal interest in this case as he has been the long standing counsel for some of the prominent members of St. George's Orthodox Church. Palayam. Trivandrum. including some of the members of the so-called'defence committee' headed by Professor K. Joshua. Justice Paripoornan has violated all norms of judicial propriety and is guilty of grave judicial misconduct". George's Orthodox Church. Palayam. Trivandrum. including some of the members of the so-called'defence committee' headed by Professor K. Joshua. Justice Paripoornan has violated all norms of judicial propriety and is guilty of grave judicial misconduct". "There is hardly any judge in Kerala who has the mental maturity and the learning required to understand the nature of this case or to see through the sinister game of the plaintiff". The charges against the 1st respondent read thus: "That you Rev. Fr. K T. Mathew. the 7th Respondent in O.S.No. 537 of 1983 before the Sub Court. Trivandrum filed an affidavit dated 15-1-1985 in the above Suit before the Sub Court in which you made untrue and baseless accusations and aspersions against the judges of the Kerala High Court and the effect of the statements made by you is sufficient to undermine the judiciary in the minds of the public and make them loose faith in the integrity and impartiality of the judges and. in thus scandalising the Court you have committed an offence described in S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under S.12 thereof and you ate called upon to answer the said charge". The charge against the 2nd respondent is as follows: "That you. T.P. Francis. Advocate. the counsel for the 7th respondent in O.S. 537 of 1983 before the Sub Court. Trivandrum filed an affidavit dated 15-1-1935 in the above Suit before the Sub Court in which you made untrue and baseless accusations and aspersions against the judges of the Kerala High Court and the effect of the statements made by you is sufficient to undermine the judiciary in the minds of the public and make them loose faith in the integrity and impartiality of the judges and in thus scandalising the Court you have committed an offence described in S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under S.12 thereof and you are called upon to answer the said charge". Notice was issued to both the respondents to appear in person and show cause. On 29-3-1985 Shri Mathews P. Mathew appeared on behalf of the Ist respondent. The 2nd respondent was not present. The O.P. was posted to 12th April. 1985. On that date. the 1st respondent filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. He stated thus: "The affidavit dated 15th January. On 29-3-1985 Shri Mathews P. Mathew appeared on behalf of the Ist respondent. The 2nd respondent was not present. The O.P. was posted to 12th April. 1985. On that date. the 1st respondent filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. He stated thus: "The affidavit dated 15th January. 1985 referred to in the above contempt O.P. was prepared by my counsel Major T. P. Francis on his own accord. I have not given him any instructions in the matter of preparing that affidavit. I affixed my signature to the said affidavit as advised by my said counsel. I was solely guided by his advice in this regard. I never intended to lower the authority of the High Court or to undermine judiciary in the minds of the public and make them loose faith in the integrity and impartiality of the Judges. The affidavit was signed by me without any mala fide intention whatsoever. Now I sincerely regret my action in having subscribed my name to the said affidavit. I hereby offer my sincere and unconditional apology in having signed the said affidavit. As I intended no offence. and I was merely acting as advised by my then counsel in good faith. I may kindly be found not guilty of the offence of contempt of court charged against me. and the charge may be dropped as against me. The 2nd respondent did not appear. His counsel appeared and prayed for time. The petition was adjourned to 30-5-1985 and both the respondents were directed to appear in person. On 30-5-1985. respondents 1 and 2 appeared in person and the second respondent submitted that he would file his counter affidavit in the course of the day. Meanwhile his counsel withdrew. He filed the counter affidavit and stated thus: "As I was convinced that Justice Paripoornan was motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance towards the Christian churches I was constrained to address a CAVEAT to him on 7th March 84 in my personal capacity as a citizen of India. xxx xxx xxx What happened after Justice Paripoornan referred the case to a 'Bench' defies comprehension! xxx Thereafter the Hon'ble Ag. Chief Justice reconstituted the Division Bench with Justice Sukumaran and Justice Paripoornan. In view of the strong position I had taken in my replies to the learned Advocate General and in view of the fact that both the Ag. xxx xxx xxx What happened after Justice Paripoornan referred the case to a 'Bench' defies comprehension! xxx Thereafter the Hon'ble Ag. Chief Justice reconstituted the Division Bench with Justice Sukumaran and Justice Paripoornan. In view of the strong position I had taken in my replies to the learned Advocate General and in view of the fact that both the Ag. Chief Justice and Justice Paripoornan were aware of my protest it was highly reprehensible that Justice Paripoornan should have been allowed to smuggle himself on to the Division Bench With information now available to me I am convinced that Justice Paripoor nan had persona interest in smuggling himself on to the Division Bench. xx As regards my allegation that the Division Bench have handed down a judgment'which is the most disgraceful ever pronounced in any country where Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence holds sway". the very same allegation was made by me in a registered document addressed to the then Ag. Chief Justice (Justice Bhaskaran) on 27-11-1984. The allegations made by me have not evoked even the mildest ripple of protest from the learned Ag. Chief Justice. May I humbly submit that the learned Advocate General is getting unnecessarily agitated over statements which have already been accepted as legitimate criticism even by the learned Ag. Chief Justice. xxx xxx As regards allegations against me in para 4 of the petition filed by the learned Advocate General. I humbly submit that my allegations against Justice Paripoornan can be described only as an under-statement. In fact. a few days after 15th January 85 I filed another affidavit before the Sub Court of Trivandrum containing information about professional fees received by Justice Paripoornan from St. George's Orthodox Syrian Church. Trivandrum while he was still an advocate. for conducting the church's income-tax case before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The details are available in Voucher No.363 of 1980 in the accounts maintained by the Kaikaran (lay trustee of the church). After Mr. Paripoornan's elevation to the Bench the case continued to be handled by his erstwhile junior colleagues. It is quite clear. under the circumstances. that if Justice Paripoornan smuggled himself on to the Division Bench it was only to ensure a judgment tailored to meet the needs of the plaintiff in O.S.537 of 1983 (Joshua) who was in virtual control of the Managing Committee of the Church during the relevant period. It is quite clear. under the circumstances. that if Justice Paripoornan smuggled himself on to the Division Bench it was only to ensure a judgment tailored to meet the needs of the plaintiff in O.S.537 of 1983 (Joshua) who was in virtual control of the Managing Committee of the Church during the relevant period. As regards the statement: "There is hardly any judge in Kerala who has the mental maturity and the learning required to understand the nature of this case or to see through the sinister game of the plaintiff (emphasis supplied) I most humbly submit that I have had no reasons to change my opinion even though O.S.537 of 1983 has since been dismissed by the Sub Court with costs. I have made this observation only in respect of Ms case. and I never meant any contempt of Court. I have very cogent arguments for substantiating this statement. but the real forum before which those arguments are to be presented is the Supreme Court and not this 'Hon'ble Court!" 4. The Caveat referred to by the 2nd respondent in his affidavit was produced at the instance of the second respondent by the Advocate General and was marked as Ext.R1(e). The caveat is dated 7-3-1984 and is addressed to Justice Paripoornan. and while the case was in progress before the learned judge. Para.3 of Ext.R1(e) reads: "During the days when Your Lordship's name was being discussed as a possible judge of the High Court some of my advocate friends were of the opinion that your elevation was unlikely in view of your connections with the R.S.S." 5. When the case eventually came up for hearing on 18-7-1985. respondents 1 and 2 were present and. the Advocate General opened the case. The 1st respondent again tendered his apology and the 2nd respondent during course of his submissions maintained the same stand which he has taken in the counter affidavit filed in this proceeding. He pleaded that he may be granted time to engage a lawyer of his choice. It is to be remembered that he had given up a lawyer once engaged by him and that counsel withdrew from the scene. The court even suggested that a senior lawyer can be engaged for him by the court itself. He declined the offer. The case was therefore adjourned to 25-7-1985. On 25-7-1985 also respondents 1 and 2 were present. It is to be remembered that he had given up a lawyer once engaged by him and that counsel withdrew from the scene. The court even suggested that a senior lawyer can be engaged for him by the court itself. He declined the offer. The case was therefore adjourned to 25-7-1985. On 25-7-1985 also respondents 1 and 2 were present. The 2nd respondent did not have a counsel. He stated that he stood by all the statements he has made in the affidavit and that he had his own reasons to make those statements. He also submitted that he did not want this Bench to hear this case at all. He was asked specifically with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit before this Court whether he stood by those statements even at the time of hearing. He asserted that he stood by every word of what was stated in his affidavit. He was then told that the statements themselves constitute criminal contempt and that he can have no defence in the matter on the ground that the statements made by him were true. He was. therefore. not allowed to make any fresh statement. From his attitude and from his demeanour in Court. we were convinced that he was about to make a show of himself in the crowded hall of the Chief Justice's Court. in which case. the dignity and serenity of the Court would have been badly affected. There was no repentance for the reckless allegations he made against this Court and the judges constituting this Court. 6. We have bestowed our anxious thoughts on the problem posed. We are sad that the conduct of this counsel should sink several fathoms deep. when considering his age and his past service in the army. he should have been at the top to maintain and uphold the dignity of the Court and the high standards of his profession. The second respondent is a retired army major. practising as an Advocate at Trivandrum. He is now 68. He cannot throw missiles against a judge and destroy justice. Judge is no opponent and justice cannot be a victim. Having lost his client's case in Court. he unfortunately treads on a dangerous course when he makes a scathing attack against the judges and the judiciary in Kerala If he thought. humiliation of a judge would serve his cause. He cannot throw missiles against a judge and destroy justice. Judge is no opponent and justice cannot be a victim. Having lost his client's case in Court. he unfortunately treads on a dangerous course when he makes a scathing attack against the judges and the judiciary in Kerala If he thought. humiliation of a judge would serve his cause. he was clearly wrong. If he believed that intimidation of a judge will deter other judges from their sacred path of duty. he was sadly mistaken. Judges may forgive; but justice shall not suffer. Judges do not retaliate and justice is not vindictive. We shall remember the Supreme Court when in M.R. Parashar v. Farooq Abdullah (AIR 1984 S.C. 615). it was observed thus: "But it is necessary to make it clear that though law does not restrain the expression of disapprobation against what is done in or by courts of law. the liberty of free expression is not to be confounded with a licence to make unfounded allegations of corruption against the judiciary. The abuse of the liberty of free speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt. xxx xxx Those who attack the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an institution which is indispensable for the survival of the rule of law but which has no means of defending itself. In the very nature of things. it cannot engage itself in an open war. nor indulge in releasing contradictions. The sword of justice is in the hands of the Goddess of justice. not in the hands of mortal Judges. Therefore. Judges must receive the due protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character." 7. The Supreme Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (AIR 1984 SC 1374) a case of contempt against an Advocate. with an apology of the conviction. made these weighty observations: "It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar. who care for their self-respect. to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced. advocates who can cow down the judges. and make them tall in line with their wishes. by threats of character assassination and persecution. will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts. 7. We have yet to come across a judge who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk. it will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere. some day. by some one. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather than merely sermonize) much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction. which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the judge who has been scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show magnanimity when some one else is the victim rather than when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that consideration of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We. therefore. cannot take a lenient of indulgent view of of this matter. We dread the day when a judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity. if any of his orders. or the decision rendered by him displeases any of the advocates appearing in the matter. We dread the day when a judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity. if any of his orders. or the decision rendered by him displeases any of the advocates appearing in the matter. We firmly believe that considerations regarding maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the judges demand that we do not allow the appellant to escape with impunity on the mere tendering of an apology which in any case does not wipe out the mischief. We are of the opinion that the High Court was therefore justified in imposing a substantive sentence. And the sentence imposed cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion". 8. The second respondent submits that his case (the case of the first respondent) was before a Single Bench. It was referred to a division beach. And in the caveat which he filed. he himself has stated that he had no objection in the same learned judge being a member on the Bench. He says "I shall raise no objection whatsoever to your lordship's (Justice Paripoornan) being a member of such an expanded court. where your lordship shall have full freedom to aim his views". The Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice. That Bench disposed of the appeal and the Special Leave application to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. It is thereafter that the 2nd respondent states: (i) That the judge was motivated by religious bigotry. (ii) That the judge smuggled himself to the Division Bench. (iii) That the judge had a personal interest in smuggling himself on to the Division Bench. (iv) That the Division Bench handed down a judgment which is the most disgraceful ever pronounced in any courts. (v) That the judgment was brought about by trickery. judicial dishonesty and bad faith. (vi) That the allegations made against the learned judge were only "understatements". (vii) That there is hardly any judge in Kerala who has the mental maturity and the learning required to understand the nature of his case. 9. The averments made by the second respondent in his affidavit before the Sub-Court. judicial dishonesty and bad faith. (vi) That the allegations made against the learned judge were only "understatements". (vii) That there is hardly any judge in Kerala who has the mental maturity and the learning required to understand the nature of his case. 9. The averments made by the second respondent in his affidavit before the Sub-Court. Trivandrum affirmed as they are by the statements made by him and in the affidavit filed in this Court clearly show that he has committed criminal contempt as defined in S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. These statements scandalize and lower the authority of this Court and obstruct the administration of justice. On his advice. the first respondent also filed a similar statement in the form of an affidavit. We have therefore no hesitation in concluding that the charges against both the respondents are proved and both the respondents are guilty of Criminal Contempt. If so the question of sentence alone remains to be considered. 10. Regarding the 1st respondent. the priest. he has stated in categorical terms in the affidavit filed in this Court at the earliest opportunity that he was tendering an unconditional apology and that the affidavit filed by him in the lower court was prepared under instructions of his counsel and without any instructions from him. He continued to maintain this stand throughout the hearing. We have no doubt about his bona fides and we accept his apology. 11. In spite of our highest respect for the church and the clergy. we cannot but admonish the first respondent Rev. Fr K.T. Mathew for his inconsiderate. irresponsible. ill-advised statements made in his affidavit dated 15-1-1985 filed before the Sub-Court. Trivandrum. which are calculated to tarnish the fair image of the judiciary in this State and the Judges of the High Court of Kerala in particular and we administer a warning to him that if he repeats in this conduct hereafter. his sin then will be visited with greater penalties as provided by law. We discharge the first respondent. 12. The second respondent is guilty of a grave crime of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act by filing an affidavit dated 15-1-1985 before the Sub Court. Trivandrum. In spite of his age. wisdom has not dawned on him. He persists in affirming his earlier statements As he is guilty of Criminal contempt. under the Act. 12. The second respondent is guilty of a grave crime of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act by filing an affidavit dated 15-1-1985 before the Sub Court. Trivandrum. In spite of his age. wisdom has not dawned on him. He persists in affirming his earlier statements As he is guilty of Criminal contempt. under the Act. he has to be punished. Considering all circumstances. including his age and his late entry into the profession. we consider that in the interest of justice. he be directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer imprisonment for another 7 days. He is given 7 days time to pay the fine. Ordered accordingly.