JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal, J. The two contemnors against whom role of contempt has been issued by order dated 30.4.85, are respectively the Editor and Publisher of a weekly newspaper ‘Priya prabhat' published from Bhagalpur. 2. The Act, of contempt is the publication of a news item in the issue of the said paper dated 28th December, 1984. The matter bad been brought to the notice of this Court on the note of the First Assistant Registrar, dated the 20th March, 1985, which was put up before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the registrar of this Court stating that the news item which I shall presently indicate was "clearly motivated and tended to scandalise the authority of the Court and to interfere and obstruct the administration of jusice" He suggested for placing the matter on the judicial side of the Court for consideration if action under the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, was necessary against the contemners. On that note of the Registrar, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ordered for putting up the matter before me a n the judicial side and accordingly when the mattes was put up, by order dated the 30th April, 1985, a rule of contempt was issued and the contemners wore called upon to show cause as to why they should not be punished for the Act, of contempt by publishing the said news item. The contumacious news item reads as follows :- O;ogkj U;k;ky; dk fujh{k.k U;k;ewfrZ ij iwoZ ftyk tt gkoh ^^Hkkxyiqj %& tkudkjh feyh gS fd gky gh esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds ,d U;k;ewfrZ n~okjk Hkkxyiqj ,o ckdk¡ n~okjk Hkkxyiqj ,o ckdk¡ O;ogkj U;k;ky;ksa dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k tks ppkZ dk fo”k; cuk gqvk gSA dgrs gS fd fujh{k.k ds le; lkr&lkr lafpdkvksa ,oa ufRFk;ksa dh ekax dh xbZ vksj [kkl&[kkl dkeZpkfj;ksa ds rcknys ds fy;s ftyk tt in nokc Mkyk x;k tSlk iwoZ esa fujh{k.k ds le; dHkh ugha fd, tkrs gSA vk’kadk O;Dr dh tk jgh gS fd ;gk¡ ds ,d iwoZ ftyk tt tks vius Hkz”Vkpkj vkSj dkysa dkjukeksa d dkj.k lsok fu;qDr djk fn;s x, gSa] ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ ij gkoh FksaA dgrs gS fd os vius lsok fuo~r vkns’k dks okil djkus esa ,M+h pksVh dk ilhuk ,d fd, gqa, gSA vk’kadk dh cy blfy, feyrk crkrsa gS fd fufj{k.k ds nkSjku mDr ftyk tt vkSj muds iq= vkfn dks Hkh ;gk¡ ns[kk x;k FkkA I had gone to Bhagalpur as the Inspecting Judge of that Judgship for the annual inspection from the 9th to 13th of November, 1984. The District Judge of Bhagalpur is Mr. Md. Yunus Ansari, who took over the charge from his predecessor Shri Ranhit Lal Bhagat on the 12th September, 1983. Towards the end of the term of Sri Bhagat at Bhagalpur, some allegation petitions and adverse reports were received by the High Court. There bad also been a strike of the Civil Courts staff of Bhalgapur during his regime, Some of the allegation petitions against Sri Bhagat were also entrusted to me for investigation and inquiry while I had gone to Bhagalpur for inspection. 4. Although in the present publication in question the name of the High Court Judge is not mentioned, on the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is obvious that it relates to me and my inspection on work of the Civil Courts at Bhagalpur. 5. The allegations made in the news item in question can be conveniently divided into four parts according to the insinuating allegations made against the Inspecting Judge, namely: (a) The Inspecting Judge had called for during his inspection the files only of some particular cases. 5. The allegations made in the news item in question can be conveniently divided into four parts according to the insinuating allegations made against the Inspecting Judge, namely: (a) The Inspecting Judge had called for during his inspection the files only of some particular cases. (b) Pressure was put on the District Judge for transfer of some particular employees of the court which is said to have never been done during the course of earlier inspections. (c) It was apprehended that the previous District Judge who was terminated from his services on account of his acts of corruption and misconduct, had prevailed upon the Judge. (d) It was said that the previous District Judge was leaving no stone unturned to get the order of his compulsory retirement recalled and was seen at Bhagalpur with his son during the inspection period. 6. In spite of notice to appear and show cause, If any, against the rule as well as to be personally present, the contemners neither appeared nor filed any show cause for a considerable time, although the case was fixed for bearing from time to time and orders for their presence were passed to the knowledge of their Advocate. The Court, therefore, had to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the contemners by order dated 17.9.1985 and it ill thereafter that they appeared in Court. It was when the case was again taken up on 20.11.85 that they filed their show cause in which after setting out certain defence for the publication in question, they also purported to tender unqualified in the real sense and they prayed for further time to file a supplementary show cause and accordingly on 29.11.85 two supplementary show causes were filed. In the main show cause the contemners have stated that the news item published in the newspaper was "based on the talks in the general public and… ... that no intention to malign the reputation of the Judge of this Hon'ble Court". 7. Earlier on 26.8.85 when the case was for the first time placed for bearing, it had been submitted on behalf of the contemners that the news item being not based on the personal knowledge of the contemners but being based only an rumours and not being directed against any particular Judge of this Court, on can tempt can be laid to have been committed by the contemners. 8. 8. It has already been seen earlier that cognizance against the contemners bad been taken by this Court in exercise of the suo motu power on the information contained in the report of the Assistant Registrar and the Registrar of this Court. The power of the High Court to take action suo motu seems to me to be well settled and reference, if any needed, can be made to the case of G.N. Verma vs. Hargobind Dayal and others where cognizance was taken for an Act, of criminal contempt against the contemner simply on the information contained in an application by a private individual with respect to a publication in a newspaper. 9. The submission that the publication was based on rumours, in my view, makes the stand of the contemners all the more ridiculous as this submission makes the position admitted that they did not show any care to verify the rumours and then did not discharge the responsibility and caution expected of an Editor and Publisher of a newspaper, particularly when it contained so dispraging remarks against a High Court Judge which bad the effect of lowering his prestige and casting aspersion all his honesty and integrity. This view finds full support from a decision of our own Court in State of Bihar vs. Shri Anant Prasad and another. 10. The case of R.S. Ramchandra in re also is somewhat similar to the case in hand. There the Editor of a weekly had published the contents of a letter addressed by him to the registrar of the Delhi High Court in two issue of his weekly paper ‘Crusader’ and on that publication contempt proceedings were initiated by the Delhi High Court on its own motion. The language employed by the Editor was quite revealing and it said : - “... the entire judgment delivered by B.B. Gupta is malicious, mischievous and outrageously wicked”. Referring to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra’s case that vilifacatory eriticism of one functioning as Judge even in purely administrative or non-adjudicatroy matters amounted to criminal contempt and there is no warrant for the narrow view that the absence of scandalisation takes place when the imputation has reference to the adjudicatory function of a judge in the seat of justice, it was held that there was no Justification for vilification of the judge. It was further firmly held that the contemner be not allowed to defend himself by leading evidence to justify the allegations of such nature made by him. Such an effort by a contemner who scandalizes being permitted to adduce evidence in support of such allegation was prohibited in order to keep the stream of justice clear.” 11. Several High Courts in similar circumstances have taken a strong exception to such publications and attempt to outrage the integrity and independence of the justice system (see the State of Bihar v. Shri Anant Prasad & another, C.N. Verma v. Hargovind Dayal & others. The Legal Remberancer, Bihar v. Atul Chandra Ghose and another, R.S. Ramchandra in re: Aswini Kumar Ghose & anr. v. Arabinda Bose & anr. Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & anr. v. The State of Maharashtara and Mohammad Vamin & ors. V. Om Prakash Bansal. 12. Now, I proceed to examine as to whether the Act, of the contemners constituted criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c)or the Contempt or Courts Act. Section2(c) defines ‘Criminal contempt’ in these words :- "2(c) 'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken on written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise or any matter or the doing of any other Act, whatsoever which- (1) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course or any Judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in another manner." 13. Before I bad gone to Bhgalpur and even on reaching there for the annual inspection of this Judgeship, lot or complaints were made to me regarding the staff or this place and I found that the present District Judge found himself helpless in tightening his grip over the administration on account of the previous incidents. It transpired to me that the office clerks" particularly some of these who were the office bearers of the local branch of the Non-gazatted Employee Association, were very aggressive and harassing the litigant public to serve their own interest. Naturally the District Judge was very much reluctant to remove them from their places of present postings, which were advantageous) for them, but under my orders the, were removed from the key places. 14. Naturally the District Judge was very much reluctant to remove them from their places of present postings, which were advantageous) for them, but under my orders the, were removed from the key places. 14. The right of the High Court on the administrative side in general and of the Inspecting Judge in particular during the course of his inspection, to call for certain files and records of specific cases in respect whereof the Court or the Judge has got some information or reports. is in the very nature of things the only way of exercising the administrative control over the Subordinate Judiciary, Transfer of all the employees of any place at one time is never ordered nor it is administratively possible. Only such of the employees who earn the reputation of notoriety or for administrative reasons, whose transfer is thought expedient, arc transferred. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Baradokants Mishra v. Registrar, Orissa High Court observed that a Judie’s function may be divisible but his integrity and authority are not divisible in the context of administration of justice. An unwarranted attack on him for corrupt administration is just as potent in doing pubic harm as an attack on his adjudicatory functions. Therefore, if a scandalous attack is made on the Judge in his administrative or other capacity of non-adjudicatory nature, it can amply form the basis of contempt proceeding. 16. The third part of the news item that the previous District Judge (Shri Ranjit Lal Bhagat) bas prevailed upon the High Court Judge forgetting the order of his com-retirment recalled, apart from beingpulsory to the real facts, is again a concerted attack on the integrity of the Judge and bound to lead to an injurious effect on the mind of the public in general, that the judge was acting in discharge of his official duty on extraneous considerations. Such vilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning even in purely administrative matters spuarely comes within the mis-chief of criminal contempt and amounts to gross contempt of the Court. 17. Such vilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning even in purely administrative matters spuarely comes within the mis-chief of criminal contempt and amounts to gross contempt of the Court. 17. The argument of the learned Advocate appearing for the contembers that the allegations were not directed against any particular Judge of this court suggesting that in the circumstances could not be a contempt, is so misconceived and erroneous that it doe not merit much discussion, in view of all other facts having been stated therein to fix the identity of the Judge concerned, It is a common knowledge that a visit of a High Court Judge for inspection of district headquaters becomes fully known to the public and due publication is also made there of by the court to apprise the litigant public to make its grievances before the Judge. The argument, even if accepted, is bound to make the position of the contembers more worse as in all the mischief sought to be created by the publication was to lower the dignity of a Judge and the public in general must lose faith in the intergrity and impartiality of the Judge as a whole. 18. It is, no doubt, true that the contemners have been constrained to offer apology to this Court, but I do not feel persuaded to discharge them on acceptance of the apology in view of the fact that the tendency of vilification of the Judges without any justification is growing. But still I propose to take somewhat lenient view in the matter in award of punishment to them on account of the fact that they appear to be misguided persons and for the remose and contrition shown by them, although at a belated stage, by punishing them with fine only. In my opinion, a fine of Rs. 150/- on each of the contemners would serve the ends of justice. The fine must be paid or deposited within a month form today is default, they must suffer simply imprisonment for 15 days each. 19. K.B. Sinha, J.- I entirely agree with the finding recorded by my learned brother and the sentence passed against the contemners, However, I would like to add few words of my own. 20. The fine must be paid or deposited within a month form today is default, they must suffer simply imprisonment for 15 days each. 19. K.B. Sinha, J.- I entirely agree with the finding recorded by my learned brother and the sentence passed against the contemners, However, I would like to add few words of my own. 20. When the bearing commenced on the first day it was faintly argued by the learned counsel, then appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the news item in question did not relate to judicial function of this Court, perhaps, meaning thereby that the same was connected only with the administrative function of a Judge of this Court and thence could not be the subject matter of contempt. So a pertinent question, which falls for consideration is whether criticism of administrative function a Judge or of this Court constitute, criminal contempt, as defined in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 21. At the very outset, I would like to mention that the Courts and Judges are not immune from criticism so long in it fair, honest and free from any malice. But those who transgress the limit and indulge in vilification the Courts, administration of justice and the limbs through which the administration functions, do it at their own risk. 22. The news item published in the newspaper has already been set forth verbatim by my learned brother and so also section 2 (c) of the Act. 23. According to the definition of the term 'criminal Contempt' it is clear that the contempt may be committed either by publication or by doing any other act, the consequences of which fall within the ambit of sub-clause (i) or (ii) or (iii) of the said section, It is worthwhile to notice that out of the three categories mentioned in section 2(c), sub-clause (ii) refers to only judicial proceeding. As regards sub-clause (i) and (iii), they do not talk of judicial proceeding. The expression ‘administration of justice’ in sub-clause (iii) is much wider in scope, than the expression ‘the due course of any judicial proceeding’, as used in sub-clause (ii), The language of clause (iii) and the expression used ‘administration of justice in any other manners further enlarges the scope of this section and gives it a residuary charactor. The expression ‘administration of justice’ in sub-clause (iii) is much wider in scope, than the expression ‘the due course of any judicial proceeding’, as used in sub-clause (ii), The language of clause (iii) and the expression used ‘administration of justice in any other manners further enlarges the scope of this section and gives it a residuary charactor. It also covers the acts of the Courts and Judges falling beyond Judicial proceeding provided they are connected with administration of justice. 24. The primary function or the Courts and lodges is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. But it is eqully important for the superior Courts to keep watch over the conduct and behaviour of the subordinate court as a Judge in order to administer law. As a matter of fact both the functions are essential for the administration of justice. For the purpose of exercising the power of superintendence and keep the temple of justice clean, periodical inspection of the subordinate courts in necessary. So, in my view, the function of the inspecting Judge has close nexus with the administration of justice. It, therefore, follows that baseless imputation of malafide, bias and prejudice to a Judge even in administrative matter amounts to 'Criminal Contempt'. This view is fully supported by R. Suba Rao v. Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. 25. Applying the above-mentioned principle to the facts of this case, it is manifest that the news published in question has tendency to bring into disrepute this Court and the Inspecting Judge, which imparies the faith of public in the administration of justice, It directly improper motive of partiality and casts aspersion on a Judge of this Court which is gross contempt. On bare perusal of the news item, it can legitimately be inferred that it squarely falls within the scope of section 2 (c) (iii) of the Act, and as such the contemners cannot escape its liability. Order accordingly.