( 1 ) IN the issue of the Indian Express daily dated 15-7-1995, an article appeared under the caption "legal Hurdles". The relevant portions of the said article, as published, read as under :-"barely had the Bangalore City Corporation sent cheers among the citizens by launching an offensive against unscrupulous builders, the High Court has stayed demolition of illegal structures. Former Chief Justice of India M. N. Venkatachalaiah had once remarked on the functioning of the judiciary saying that one could even obtain a stay on an airplane flying over Calcutta'. When Seshan used the same expression to voice his concern over the degeneration of the judiciary, the Supreme Court threatened to use its favourite weapon, contempt. Some of the recent Court pronouncements have prompted legal circles to harp on "judicial discipline,". The stay order issued by the Karnataka High Court on Sunday without as much as issuing a notice to the Corporation has raised many eyebrows, besides triggering a hot debate on the propriety of such a directive. As an advocate points out, "why does not the Court at least realise that this is a mater of public interest. The sympathy of the Court should lie with the public and not illegal builders. "xxx xxx xxxyet, discretion has become a scarce commodity in the corridors of the High Court. For instance, every time the Bangalore Development Authority squad decides to demolish illegal constructions on its land, it discovers that the encroacher is already armed with a stay order. Today, the easiest way to grab BDA land is to put up a shed there and secure a stay order. But then, is it not the same judiciary which denied Rajan Pillai medical aid and granted anticipatory bail to 'tandoor' Sharma ?" (underlining ours) ( 2 ) THE portions underlined clearly fall within the ambit of Clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and thus constitute Criminal Contempt. The same having come to the notice of the Court, the Acting Chief Justice directed proceedings to be initiated suo motu by registering the above Contempt of Court Case. ( 3 ) THE 1st accused herein is the author of the offensive article. The 2nd accused is the Printer and Publisher of the Bangalore edition of the Indian Express which carried the article written by the 1st accused. ( 3 ) THE 1st accused herein is the author of the offensive article. The 2nd accused is the Printer and Publisher of the Bangalore edition of the Indian Express which carried the article written by the 1st accused. The 3rd and 4th accused are the Managing, Editor and Editor-in-Chief respectively of the Indian Express daily being edited, printed and published throughout the country. The 5th accused is the Resident Editor of the Indian Express daily which is being edited, printed and published from Bangalore City. ( 4 ) NOTICES were issued to the accused directing them to appear in person and to show cause why such action as deemed fit should not be taken against them for publication of the offensive article. In pursuance of the notice, all the accused appeared in person and also represented by their learned Counsel on 27-10-1995. A joint reply statement signed by the accused was filed on the same day in which the accused have stated inter alia that after service of notice, they went through the report in the daily dated 15-7-1995 and after carefully going through the same, they have found that the report in question should not have been written by the 1st accused and should not have been edited, printed and published in the Indian Express daily dated 15-7-1995. The accused further deeply regretted for the slip on their paid and tendered unconditional apology for having, edited, printed and published the said report in their paper. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the joint statement, the accused have further stated thus :-"8. The respondents are attached to a big organisation which stands for values and principles. As such they have the greatest respect for the courts and its orders. The publication which is the subject matter of the offence in the above case as already stated above is solely on account of a bonafide slip on the part of the respondents and the respondents would not have allowed the matter in question to be published in the daily had they exercised greater degree of care and caution. The respondents definitely do not justify their action in the matter and would deeply regret for the same. 9. The respondents definitely do not justify their action in the matter and would deeply regret for the same. 9. The respondents would also publish the unconditional apology which they are so tendering before this Hon'ble Court for having written and published the matter which is the subject matter of the above case in the daily in which the matter in question had been published earlier. " ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 15-11-1995, the accused also filed separate affidavits after serving copies thereof upon the learned Advocate General. This was done in view of distinct duties and functions which they were required to perform consistent with the respective position they were holding in the Management of the 'indian Express'. In the view we propose to take, it appears to be necessary to briefly state the gist of the versions in each of these affidavits. ( 6 ) SRI. M. Gautham Machaiah, the 1st accused, has stated that as a Journalist by profession, he is attached to the Bangalore Edition of the Indian Express daily for the last over three years as one of the Staff Correspondents. While admitting the fact that he is the author of the report which is subject matter of the offence, he has stated that either before or after writing of the report, he did not deliberate about it with any of his colleagues to place the same before the Resident Editor for his approval and thereafter for printing and publication if so advised. He has stated that being a beginner in the profession of journalism, he did not visualise the alter effects of his report including the consequences that would emanate there front It is only after receipt of the notice, he was able to understand the situation which his report had created and the after effects thereof. In his own words, it is stated thus :-"a blunder which I should not have committed has been committed by me. I deeply regret for, the same. My participation in the above proceedings as an accused has made me learn a good lesson to be more careful and highly cautious in the discharge of my duties as a Journalist. "he further states that he "should not have committed the blunder of writing the report in question which has caused damage to one of the greatest Institutions in the Country viz. "he further states that he "should not have committed the blunder of writing the report in question which has caused damage to one of the greatest Institutions in the Country viz. , the Judiciary", and that, he has greatest respects for the courts and its orders. He has further assured that he would henceforth exercise greater degree of care and caution in the discharge of his duties as a Journalist, more particularly so, as a Staff Reporter of the Indian Express daily. Ultimately, he has pleaded that being young, hardly aged about 27 years and unmarried, he has to come up not only in life but also in the profession. Drastic action against him in these proceedings at the hands of the Court would mar not only his social life but also his professional career. He once again seeks to tender his unconditional apology. ( 7 ) SRI K. Sankaran Nayar, the 2nd accused, is the Printer and Publisher of the Bangalore Edition of the Indian Express, and he has been in the service of the Indian Express for the last over 43 years. He says that as the Printer and Publisher he has no option of selecting the matter for printing and publishing in the daily and whatever is passed on by the Editorial Board has to be published. Having regard to the nature of his duties, he does not normally go through the matter which is to be printed. Nonetheless, he admits that printing of the report of the 1st accused and its publication in the Indian Express on 15-7-1995, is a slip on his part. If he had noticed the same before giving it for printing, he would not have allowed the same. He has also deeply regretted for the error on his part and tenders unconditional apology in his capacity as a Printer and Publisher of the Bangalore Edition of Indian Express. Having regard to his position in the Management and his duties and responsibilities, we have no reason to hold him to be directly responsible for the offensive publication. ( 8 ) SRI. H. S. Balram, the 5th accused, who is the Resident Editor of the Bangalore Edition, is the News Coordinator of the Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Limited. He has been in service of the paper for the past over 20 years. ( 8 ) SRI. H. S. Balram, the 5th accused, who is the Resident Editor of the Bangalore Edition, is the News Coordinator of the Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Limited. He has been in service of the paper for the past over 20 years. He admits that as the Resident Editor of the newspaper, he has a duty to go through the matters that are placed before him not only by the reporters hut also by the other Editorial Staff and thereafter to get them printed and published in the newspaper. He admits that the report of the 1st accused which is the subject matter of these proceedings must have passed through him. But he did not carefully go through the same with the concentration needed and this slip on his part has resulted in the matter being published. He has also deeply regretted for the lapse on his part and tenders an unconditional apology to the Court for having allowed the matter in question to be printed and published without the same being edited by him. He further states that he has greatest respect for the courts and its orders. ( 9 ) ACCUSED 3 and 4, as stated earlier, are the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief respectively of the Indian Express printed and published throughout the country. In the reply statement, it is stated that while the 3rd accused is based in Bombay the 4th accused is based in Delhi. In the circumstances, the daily news items and other matters printed in the Bangalore edition of Indian Express do not come to their knowledge in the normal course. As a matter of fact, they were not aware of the particular news item in question also. Nonetheless, they have also joined along with the others in expressing their deep regret and tendering unconditional apology for the offensive publication. Having regard to the position in which the said accused are placed, we had also dispensed with their appearance. We have also no reason to disbelieve that having regard to their position in the hierarchy of the Management, they are not directly connected with the day to day publication of the reports and news items in the Bangalore edition of the Indian Express. ( 10 ) TAKING into consideration the relative duties and responsibilities of the accused, only two of the accused, viz,. ( 10 ) TAKING into consideration the relative duties and responsibilities of the accused, only two of the accused, viz,. accused 1 and 5 could be held to be directly responsible and answerable for the publication of the report. As could be seen from their statements and affidavits. the publication in question did amount to contempt of Court. There cannot be any doubt that it has the effect of lowering the prestige and dignity of the Court and bring into disrepute the administration of justice. The question, therefore, for consideration is whether the apology tendered by all the accused and especially that of accused 1 and 2 should be accepted. ( 11 ) AT their very first appearance through Counsel and later appearing personally, the accused have realised and admitted the gravity of their action and tendered their unqualified apology. We have reproduced above their joint statement and separate affidavits in which they have deeply regretted for the publication of the offensive article authored by the first accused and published in the paper. Apart from the 1st accused, the other accused have also openly expressed their regrets for the failure on their part in preventing the publication. Having given our anxious consideration, we are inclined to accept their apology for more than one reason. Firstly because the accused at their very first appearance after receipt of the notice have been fair and reasonable in admitting their guilt without any reservation and did not seek to justify their action in the process of publication of the offensive article. The apology, in our opinion, is a free and frank admission of their action in publishing the report authored by the 1st accused and in fact such publication is undoubtedly disrespectful and had the effect of scandalising and lowering the authority of the Court. They have also shown their bona fide attitude in the matter by publishing in the first instance in their daily edition of Indian Express in the very first page on 28-10-1995 the report in which having noted the feelings of the Court, they have also noted the assurance given by the Senior Counsel Sri Kapil Sibal that henceforth greater discipline would be brought about. especially while reporting news items relating to judiciary and that there was no justification whatsoever for publication of the offensive report. especially while reporting news items relating to judiciary and that there was no justification whatsoever for publication of the offensive report. Ultimately, the accused have also prominently and voluntarily published on 1-3-1996 in the Indian Express newspaper their unconditional apology in writing, editing, printing and publishing the offensive report which prima facie, constituted contempt of Court. The last portion of the apology published reads thus :-". . . . . These remarks as stated by the respondents in their affidavits filed before the Court were irresponsible and unwarranted. The respondents while withdrawing the allegations made in the report against the functioning of the judiciary, have tendered unconditional apology to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. " ( 12 ) FOR the, reasons stated above, we are persuaded to accept the unqualified apology tendered by all the accused and drop these proceedings with a note of warning that this Court's indulgent acceptance of the apology of the accused who appear to be first offenders need not, however, create any impression that an apology would bail them out for a second time if they are found to be contumaciously persistent in their pursuit of denigrating the Courts or Judges. Attributing improper motives, or tending to bring judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgement of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant. Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts, administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .