Order In a public litigation brought before us such allegations were made against one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court that we felt that if left without action the prestige and dignity of the Court as a whole shall suffer. We accordingly, ordered on 23.3.1988, "before we go to the merits of the questions involved in this case we take notice of the allegations made in the petition particularly the letter appended as annexure 1' to this application" and accordingly ordered ''issue, a rule of contempt calling upon the petitioner, represented by A.K. Chakravarty to show cause within one week". Chakravarty, however, did not show any cause. He instead, filed an application for time praying there in to adjourn the matter for a period of one month. In the said petition, Chakravarty stated as the cause for the adjournment, that he had many engagements including his being engaged in the research work on the judiciary about its functioning and that he is serving as a social activist for the down trodden and the poor by providing legal aid to them. To the said petition, however, he annexed a letter addressed by him to the Member-Secretary, Bihar State Legal Aid and Advice Board, Department of Law and Justice (Legal Aid), Patna Secretariat Patna, by which he had requested for free legal assistance from the Board and another letter to the Member Secretary, Law Commission of India, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, stating there in "whether in a contempt proceeding, the Patna High Court Judges could sit on judgment of its own complaint". These acts apart, the opening words in the petition for time were" I myself is not a man from the legal profession nor I am a qualified legal practitioner. I am a social activist and working bona fide for the downtrodden and I am serving the poors and the destitutes by providing legal aid to them who are harassed persons unable to move the court of law or to either meet the cost of legal expenses and also looking after them by doing 'pairvi' because it is well known to all the citizens of India that how the so-called advocates are probing and depriving the poor persons who approached them for getting reliefs from the courts of law". 2. 2. We were not unaware of the provisions of la w in the contempt of courts Act, 1971 that adequate opportunity to defend should be provided to the contemner and that the Courts should also provide to the contemner opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. We, accordingly, while refusing the prayer for time, ordered as follows:- "Contemner states that he has to file some documents and affidavits in his defence which he shall do by fore-noon tomorrow. He may do so. It has already been indicated to him that in case he wants to examine himself in his defence as a witness or any other witnesses he may produce them accordingly in court tomorrow”. Accordingly, the hearing of the case was taken up and the contemner was directed to be present before this Court. An affidavit with a large number of documents appended there to has been filed. The Advocates Association, Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi has intervened and proposed to assist the Court in the matter. We have permitted the said Association to intervene and place the case on behalf of the Association. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel and the President of the Association has accordingly appeared before us and assisted us in reaching to the conclusion to which we shall presently advert. 3. In the writ application (C.W J.C. No. 402 of 19B8(R), the petitioner has impleaded besides the Union of India and the State of Bihar, some Legal Aid and Advice Board authorities, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Roy of this Court. 3. In the writ application (C.W J.C. No. 402 of 19B8(R), the petitioner has impleaded besides the Union of India and the State of Bihar, some Legal Aid and Advice Board authorities, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Roy of this Court. The application which purported to High-light the plight of the people at large on account of a number of vacancies in the High Court of the Hon'ble Judges which have not been filled up since long and the practice of appointing Acting Chief Justices instead of permanent Chief Justices, the petitioner gave an indication why S. Roy, J. was impleaded as a party except in paragraph 7 thereof where it has been stated thus:- "This humble petitioner most respectfully submits that admittedly there is no dirth of legal talents in this country as a whole so as to be insufficient to fill up the vacancies in this Hon'ble High Court as also the other Hon'ble High Courts where such vacancies do exist, the petitioner painfully may mention with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Justices of this Bench that in another similar petition at the time of admission hearing the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Roy has passed a remark that there is in Patna High Court no such competent learned advocates who can be appointed as Judges of this Court to fill the vacancies." 4. Thereafter there is a mention of the letter sent by the petitioner to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi. The said letter is dated February 19, 1988 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) addressed on the subject of appointment of the Judges of Patna High Court as also at its Ranchi Bench. This letter has proceeded generally questioning the wisdom to the authorities concerned in not filling up any vacancy of the Hon'ble Judges and not making the appointment of the permanent Chief Justice but has suddenly adverted to a question of transfer from one State to another State. The subject is introduced by the contemner in a manner as if he/his Association was not in favour of transfer of the Judges from one State to another State but has been turned and said but here, the case of Mr. The subject is introduced by the contemner in a manner as if he/his Association was not in favour of transfer of the Judges from one State to another State but has been turned and said but here, the case of Mr. Justice S. Roy is quite different. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Roy is a permanent citizen of Ranchi and is well versed with the local languages and there should not be any hitch to transfer him from Ranchi Bench to Patna Bench of the same State. Not only that since the date of his appointment as a Judge of this High Court i.e. from 1978 he is being posted at Ranchi Bench. Moreover he was a practicing lawyer at Ranchi and his relatives are also practicing a lawyers at Ranchi District Court and in this Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. The special relationship in between the Judges and the relative LAWYERS are vitiating the whole atmosphere of this Court. These relative lawyers are exercising a lot of control over the High Court. It is a fact that the cases are being listed according to their choice. And these lawyers securing desired orders Moreover, the cunning litigants are succeeding in choosing these lawyers for fighting their cases. This is badly affecting the practice and the atmosphere of this Ranchi Bench and the citizens are losing faith on this Judiciary. There is much talk about him i.e. about Mr. Justice S. Roy in town and in the High Court too. Therefore, under the circumstances stated as above, it is prayed that there should be a change and Mr. Justice S. Roy may kindly be transferred from Ranchi Bench to Patna Bench immediately to regain the faith of the people of Ranchi on this Judiciary". 5. Who has talked about vitiating of the whole atmosphere of this High Court, one who is a litigant? A person aggrieved who came to this Court for justice? A counsel who; for reasons, felt slighted or insulted? A person who is concerned with the affairs of the administration of justice? Neither he is one who has been masquerading as the champion of the cause of down trodden and claiming that he has been in the service of the people providing legal aid to them. A counsel who; for reasons, felt slighted or insulted? A person who is concerned with the affairs of the administration of justice? Neither he is one who has been masquerading as the champion of the cause of down trodden and claiming that he has been in the service of the people providing legal aid to them. Has we not seen the stand of the petitioner in the affidavit that he is presenting today and the documents appended there to, and his design through representations and petition filed by him, we would have pondered whether there has been something wrong in us, the judges, or the legal system or not and attempted to find out the cause that provoked the petitioner to make such allegations. These documents speak a lot and show that the petitioner has contrieved to vindicate his own annoyance and anger. He has categorically stated in the affidavit presented today atleast he can say that he will not get justice from the hands and seal of Mr. S. Roy, J.” 6. The High Court at Patna (Establishment of a permanent Bench) Act, 1976 (Act No. 57 of 1976) has given to the Chief Justice of the Court power to nominate from time to time such Judges of the High Court at Patna being not less than three in number to sit at Ranchi in order to exercise jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the District of Ranchi, Hazaribaghs Dhanbad, Giridihs Singhbhum and Daltonganj. How then the contemner could address a letter on the subject of the transfer of a Judge of this Court sitting at Ranchi to Patna, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi? How then the contemner could address a letter on the subject of the transfer of a Judge of this Court sitting at Ranchi to Patna, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi? A person who claims to know how law and courts may provide to a distitute or oppressed justice and making petitioners in the name of public interest and arguing himself at the hearing of such petitions can• not be unaware of the very creation of the permanent Bench and the power of the Chief Justice that he alone can decide who may sit at Ranchi and hear cases, Is it not then a case in which the contemner has chosen to scandalise the name of this Hon'ble Court by communicating to the Secretary, to the Government of India, Department of legal Affiairs, Ministry of law and Justice, about the alleged vitiated atmosphere of the court. He has done the damage. It is not possible to eraze it. It is not possible to deny it. 7. Who does not know that fall outs on selfish and biased interest and emerging and engulfing the society. There are some genuine, some fake representatives of the public who claim to voice the grievance of down trodden and destitute. By just taking recourse to the slogans to declassify the society they measure their success by such recognition by the people who matter once they get access, they think they are the masters who may judge the conduct of a Judge and give their own judgment. There are many genuine and bonafide applications that are dismissed by a Judge even though he acts to the best of his ability. He may err; after all he too has to suffer human failings. Can a motive then be imputed and he is charged of dishonesty? Can a litigant, however Public spirited he may be, comment upon a Judge's conduct and condemn him? There are such voices these days which come for obscure and oblique reasons. A Judge's chair is no longer easy. We believe that a Judge, who performs in the public his duty to decide a case, has nothing to fear so long he is true to his oath. There are such voices these days which come for obscure and oblique reasons. A Judge's chair is no longer easy. We believe that a Judge, who performs in the public his duty to decide a case, has nothing to fear so long he is true to his oath. He shall not hesitiate in or desist from exercising his authority of reasons for fear of being criticised by some One who had no interest of justice to vindicate his personal gains, Judges of this Court have shown exemplary courage in situations even in explosive situations and firmly upheld the dignity of the Constitution and the law and the office they held. It is indeed some times difficult and in a way embarrassing for a Judge to hold some one guilty of the court's contempt yet this is a task which has to be performed dehors emotions solely on reasons. 8. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has defined "criminal contempt", to mean publication, whether by words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other Act, whatsoever which sandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court: or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. 9. In Shri C.K. Daphtary Vrs. O.P. Gupta the Supreme Court has said in a case of contempt committed by the Publication of the booklet about the conduct of some of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. "Respondent No. 1 sought to justify the extracts which we have reproduced above from para 7 of the petition. His justification was, in brief that he could show that in the judgment there were numerous errors. He proceeded to point out a number of so-called errors to us but we told him that we were not sitting as a Court of appeal and we were willing to assume in his favour without deciding the point, that there were errors in the judgment. But even so, there is no excuse whatsoever for using the language which he employed in these passages ... ... But even so, there is no excuse whatsoever for using the language which he employed in these passages ... ... ...It seems to us that in view of the decisions of the various High Courts in India and this Court the passages we have extracted read as a whole, constitute gross contempt of this Court and the two Judges. In this connection we may refer to some of the earlier cases decided by various High Courts. In Moti Lal Ghosh in re. (1918) ILR 45 Cal 169 at P. 182 A.I.R. 1918 Cal. 988 at P. 994) a newspaper published articles scandlising the High Court and the Chief Justice in his administration thereof, by allegations implying that the Chief Justice had constituted a packed Bench. It was held that the articles constituted contempt of Court. One of the reasons given for holding contempt was that, "the mere suggestion that such a thing is within the bounds of possibility is a grave reflection upon the Court and the persons responsible for its administration". 10. The above judgment gives sufficient light to understand that publication in any form of a fair criticism of a judgment may not constitute contempt but a vilificationary criticism shall per se be a criminal contempt. The petitioner has by dispatching the letter aforementioned to the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice has committed a criminal contempt. 11. The instant case is one in which the contemner has choosen to vilify the conduct of one of the Judges of this Court in discharging judicial functions. 12. In Shri Baradakanta Mishra V. Registrar of Orissa High Court and another the Supreme Court considered the import of the words used in section 2 (C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which has defined criminal contempt, in the context of certain allegations, of malafides, bias, improper motive, and prejudice against High Court Judges in grounds of appeal to Governor and pointed out that all the three sub-clauses of section 2 (c) define contempt in terms of obstructions of or interference with administration of justice. Administration of justice is exclusively associated with the Court of justice-Courts of justice have to perform multifarious functions for due administration of justice. Administration of justice is exclusively associated with the Court of justice-Courts of justice have to perform multifarious functions for due administration of justice. Any lapse from the strict standards of rectitude in performing these functions is bound to affect administration of justice which is a term of wider import than mere adjudication of causes form seat of justice and that the whole set up of a court is for the purpose of administration of justice, and the control which the Judge exercises over his assistants has also the object of maintaining the purity of administration. After stating the law in these words the Supreme Court has said. "The mere function of adjudication between parties is not the whole of administration of justice for any court and vilificatory criticism of a judge functioning as a judge even in purely administrative or non-adjudicatory matters amounts to criminal contempt. There is no warrant for the narrow view that the offence of scandalisation of the court takes place only when the imputation has reference to the adjudicatory functions of a judge in the seat of justice" 13. A Bench of this court has also taken a similar view in the cases of State Vrs. Janardan Prasad Singh in which it has been observed. - "a judge'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 public harm as an attack on his adjudicatory functions........” The Supreme Court has again in a recent order in Charan Lal Sahu V. Union of India and another has issued rule of contempt calling upon the advocate-petitioner, who had raised a public interest litigation for the reason that he had couched the petition in unsavory language and made an intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Supreme Court and also other constitutional institutions. 14. The Controller has done both. He has made serious vilificatory criticism of one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and added that the entire atmosphere of the Court's at Ranchi is vitiated, and abused the advocates in such words that are not only disparaging but are contemptuous. 15. Mr. 14. The Controller has done both. He has made serious vilificatory criticism of one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and added that the entire atmosphere of the Court's at Ranchi is vitiated, and abused the advocates in such words that are not only disparaging but are contemptuous. 15. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Association has taken us through these authorities and through the contents of the affidavit and the document appended thereto by the contemner it appears that the contemner has not confined his criticism in the aforementioned letter only but has continued it in the affidavit that he has filed by reiterating that he believes that he cannot get justice from S. Roy, J. and that the entire court's function is controlled by the relative lawyers of the Hon'ble Judge, who get their cases listed according to their choice and obtain desired orders. He has gone further in the affidavit to allege about the conduct of Sandhwalia, C.J. (as he then was), S.B. Sanyal, J. (When he was a Counsel), B.P. Singh, J. (When he was a Counsel) and S.B. Sinha, J. (When he was a Counsel) 16. Such uncontrolled vilificatory criticism of the functions of the court is a gross contempt. The contemner has not offered any apology in writing, although he has stated in the petition for time that he had offered oral apology. He has, however, not stated any time that he was offering unqualified apology. He stood up when we took delivering judgment and stated that he had committed mistake and that he was tendering apology. 17. We are not unaware that this Court has administered justice with mercy and even law like the contempt of courts has been used sparingly, its sharp edges soften by human compassion and made dispassion-able determination without any emotional dehors. Still as held by this court in the case of Janardan Prasad Singh (Supra), we are of the view that acceptance of apology and thereby remitting this sentence shall not satisfy the ends of justice. 18. The contemner has already given enough publicity of his words by writing any where and every where and using expressions which are highly contemptuous. He has no material to support any of his allegations. His interference from some of the judicial pronouncement cannot provide any excuse to him. 18. The contemner has already given enough publicity of his words by writing any where and every where and using expressions which are highly contemptuous. He has no material to support any of his allegations. His interference from some of the judicial pronouncement cannot provide any excuse to him. It not only denounced and defamed one of the Judges of this court but also the fair name of the administration of justice by this Court. 19. For the reasons, as stated, we conclude that the contemner has committed gross contempt and accordingly find him guilty and he is accordingly convicted. We would have awarded maximum sentence so that it would have served as an example to those who attacked administration of justice in this State almost in casual manner and talked loosely without realising their responsibility that no irresponsible statement should be made to denigrade the fair name of justice, but the contemner appears to be some what old in age. We consider that simple imprisonment for three months only shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we convict and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Let the contemner be taken into custody and be kept in civil prison at the Central Jail, Ranchi, to serve out the period of sentence awarded to him Rule made absolute.