JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The petitioner has come up in a contempt petition with an allegation that the orders of the High Court passed by Hon'ble K.K. Chaubey, J. on 16th December, 1989 and the order passed by Hon'ble S.R. Bhargava, J. on 4th January, 1990 have been breached and thus, this court ought to issue notice of motion to the opposite-parties under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. At present this court is not reflecting upon the orders, the breach of which is alleged. 3. Upon reading the contempt petition carefully, the court finds that scandalous allegations have been made against the Indian Judicial System. There are comments that the system is corrupt, and there is a special reference to High Court Judges as an institution, as being highly susceptible to corruption. The Judges have not been left alone. The medical fraternity in India, in general, has also been commented uncharitably. 4. One set of allegations have been made by the opposite-party No. 3, Yashpal Rai Goomer alias Pauli in a communication addressed to opposite party No. 5, Jagatri Lal Sachdeo. These observations have been made in letter, dated 19th June, 1989, Annexure 'A-5'. 5. The Court inquired of the petitioner on how he came across this letter, which is otherwise a personal communication. The petitioner explained to the court that this communication lies on record appended to a counter-affidavit filed by Jagatri Lal Sachdeo, opposite-party No. 5, in a habeas corpus petition. This letter was set up on record by the opposite parties. The counter affidavit which carries this letter as an annexure was affirmed on 5th June, 1989. This communication has, thus become public information and ceases to be one of private correspondence. 6. The author of this letter is Yashpal Rai Goomer. 7. The court is conscious that citizens of other nations when they are litigating at courts in India; may be making comparative analysis of working institutions in their country with Indian Institutions. But there is a difference between an academic critical analysis and contemptuous derogatory aspersion. 8. Now on the expressions made by the aforesaid, person resident in Canada, on the Indian Judicial System and Judges. This is what Yashpal Rai Goomer, opposite-party No. 3, says:-- ......... I have no faith left in the Indian system which is woefully inefficient and corrupt............ But there is a difference between an academic critical analysis and contemptuous derogatory aspersion. 8. Now on the expressions made by the aforesaid, person resident in Canada, on the Indian Judicial System and Judges. This is what Yashpal Rai Goomer, opposite-party No. 3, says:-- ......... I have no faith left in the Indian system which is woefully inefficient and corrupt............ If India thinks that Neal can be summoned dishonourably to be made an object of ridicule then let the authorities try, we gave plenty of time to Indian juristic system to settle this case once and for all but instead it has become nothing but a circus.... .... .... Please do inform all the respected courts in India dealing in this idiotic matter. You can endure lot of sufferings because you are used to because of the system in India but we will not anymore. 9. The expression made by Mr. Yashpal Rai Goomer would have been ignored by the court as they are part of a personal and private correspondence. But, unfortunately the text of the letter which carries these comments are part of the record, public record, of a court which is part of a public justice system. The views of Mr. Yashpal Rai Goomer are now public, having been put on record by opposite-party No. 5, Jagatri Lal Sachdeo. 10. The High Court is also aware that if summons were to issue direct to this Yashpal Rai Goomer, he may avoid the summons of this court. His vies, as expressed in his letter, quoted above already contemplate contempt for Indian Court proceedings. But this court cannot drop the matter. If an Indian citizen were to say similarly about the Canadian Judicial System, the Judicature in India would expect the Canadian Public Justice System to deal with such an Indian Citizen, under the Canadian Judicial System. Yashpal Rai Goomer is a party to proceedings before Courts in India. Mr. Yashpal Rai Goomar owes an explanation to this court on what he has expressed, derogatory as it is, about the Indian Courts and Judges, as a working institution. This notice of motion issues to him under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 11. Before this court issues a subpoena to Yashpal Rai Goomar, direct, certain aspects need to be verified on this person, from the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. This notice of motion issues to him under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 11. Before this court issues a subpoena to Yashpal Rai Goomar, direct, certain aspects need to be verified on this person, from the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. These are: (a) Does Yashpal Rai Goomar hold duel citizenship, that is, of India and Canada? (b) Is Yashpal Rai Goomar a Canadian Citizen? and (c) Is Yashpal Rai Goomar an Indian citizen with resident status in Canada? Upon the information being made available on these aspects will depend the Courts proceedings henceforth. It is the desire of this Court that the text of this order be brought to the notice. His Excellency, the High Commissioner of Canada, at New Delhi, through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. The information sought by the High Court, be made available, if possible, by 15th July 1990 direct to the court through the Registrar. For the convenience of the Canadian High Commission, the address of Mr. Yashpal Rai Goomar, as given in the contempt petition is: 41, Ames Circle, Don Mills, North York, Toronto, Canada M-3B-369. 12. The Registrar High Court, will address a letter to the First Secretary, Canadian High Commission, Shanti Path, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, with a request that the text of the court's order be placed before His Excellency the Canadian High Commissioner. Thereafter, another letter will be addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, that the court's order along with the communication of the Registrar, High Court be delivered at the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi, without delay. The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs may arrange to have this court intimated, through the Registrar that the directions of the court have been carried out. For the purposes of diplomatic formality the text of this order, alongwith the Registrar's communication is being delivered at Canadian High Commission, not by this court direct, but through the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 13. List for orders before this court on 20th July, 1990.