R. D. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of M. Cr. No. 195/96, Suresh Gupta and Anr. v. Shri Digvyaysingh and Ors. , as similar question of facts and law have been raised in both the petitions. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Sadhvi Ritumbhara a religious person and social worker was arrested in the midnight of 23rd and 24th April 1995. Shri Suresh Gupta (petitioner No. 1 of M. Cr. No. 195/96) filed a petition bearing W. P. No 596/95 before this court for grant of habeas corpus and challenged the arrest and proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 (3) of the Cr. P. C. passed by S. D. M. Indore under Section 118 of the Cr. P. C. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 27 -4-1995 quashed the proceedings; During the pendency of W. P. No. 596/95 a case under, Section 153-A, I. P. C. was registered against Sadhvi Riturnbhara and a formal arrest for that offence was made in Gwalior jail. ( 3 ) AS such Sadhvi Ritumbhara filed a Writ petition (W. P. No. 571 /95) on 3-5-1995 the Division Bench, of his, court allowed the petition on 5-5-1995 and, ordered that Sadhvi Riturnbhara be set at liberty for with. Aggrieved by this order (Ex. P/2) the State Government - filed S. L. P. vide S. L. P. (Cr1 ). No. 1886-87/95 before, the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court of this country vide order dated 12-5-1995 directed issuance of show cause notice. The State Government, thereafter, made request of adjournment and the case was, as such pending before the Apex Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner (here) claims to be the Gurubhaior Sadhvi Riturnbhara Respondent No. 1 is the Chief Minister of the State of M. P. , respondent No. 2 was Minister of State for Home at the relevant period. Petitioner No. 1 (in M. Cr. C. No. 195/96) also clamis to be the Gurubhai of petitioner No. 2 Sadhvi Ritumbhara. He had filed W. P. No. 596/95 seeking release of petitioner No. was arrested earlier on the inverening night of 23rd and 24th April, 195/96 herself had earlier filed W. P. No. 671/95 challenging her arrest under Section 153-A, I. P. C. with a Claim of (in M. Cr. He had filed W. P. No. 596/95 seeking release of petitioner No. was arrested earlier on the inverening night of 23rd and 24th April, 195/96 herself had earlier filed W. P. No. 671/95 challenging her arrest under Section 153-A, I. P. C. with a Claim of (in M. Cr. C No. 2414/95) has again shown respondent No. 1 in M. Cr. C. No. 195/96 are the officers of the State Government and respondent No. 4 is printer and publisher of National Mail. Sadhvi Ritumbhara thereafter; filed an application for anticipatory bail and a revision before the Sessions Judge, Dewas as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagli had issued a warrant of arrest. The Sessions Judge dismissed, the petition; Aggrieved by the orders of the Sessions Judge (passed in application under Sections 438/407 and revision) an application for anticipatory bail and transfer of the case was filled before this Court vide M. Cr. C. No. 2280/95 and, a petition under Artici- 226 of the Constitution. That was No. , 1033/95 TI filed on behalf of Sadhvi Hitumbhani is TI still pending before this Court One M. Cr. C. No. , 597/95 praying clarification of order dated 5-5-1995 is also pending before this Court. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that -respondent, No. made pronouncement before Press on 27 (28-5-1995) (2-5- 1995), 3- (4-5-1995 ). 10- (11-6-1995),6- (7. :8,1995) and pronouncement made by respondent No. , 2 on 4- (5-5-1995 was, published in various news papers that Sadhvi Ritumbhara shall be dealt with severely Communal forces shall be dealt with strict method Arrest of Ritumbhare is justified Arrest Of Ritumbhara is in conformity to the, Constitution of India Speech delivered by Ritumbhani at Udainagar where Sister Maria was murdered caused communal hate and excited communal tension - Sadhvi Ritumbhara has left no efforts to cause communal tension in the State - I dot, not recognise Ritumbhara as Sadhvi The orders of the High Court had been stayed by the Supreme Court since then Ritumbhara has not made any speech in any part of the country - We are tracing Ritumbhara so that we may serve notice or the Court on her. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 made a pronouncement in the Press that Ritumbhara is not Sadhvi In case workers of B. J. P. and Bajrang Dal affirm on oath that Ritumbhra is a Sadhivi I shall resign from the council of Ministers. Copies of Prees statements are annexures P17, P/8, P/9, P/10, P/li, P/12 and P/13 have been annexed alongwith the petition. ( 6 ) IT has been asserted by the petitioners that the statements of respondents have been published by the Press. It has caused prejudice to the case of Sadhvi Ritumbhara and an impression is tried to be created in the mind of people against her. This constitution interference with due course of justice of this Court. The acts of respondents constitute mispresentation of the proceedings of the Honble High Court. ( 7 ) THE respondents No. 1 to 2 have filed separate reply. It is submitted on behalf of respondents No. 1 that an offences under Section 153 A of the I. P. C. was registered against Sadhvi Ritumbhra in Police Station, Udai nagar, District Dewas, in relation to speech delivered by her on 23-4-1995 in the public meeting organised by Hindu Chetna Manch. A proceeding under Section 107 and 116 Cr. P. C. were started by S. D. M. and she was arrested and during this custody the police registered a case vide Crime No. 35/95 and sought permission for arrest. Therefore a production warrant was obtained from J. M. F. C. Baghi for her production on 28-4-1995. Vide order dated 27-4-1995 in W. P. No. 596/95 this Court was pleased to hold that proceeding under Sections 107 and 116 Cr. P. C. were not legal, but since production warrant was issued before the appropriate Forum. Division Bench of this Court did not quash the registration of offence and the trail Court was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. An oberservation of requirement of sanction of prosecution was also made. ( 8 ) THE State Government filed S. L. P. before the Supreme Court in which on 12-5-1995 an interim stay was granted. The arrest of Sadhvi Ritumbhara was given a political colour and some persons wanted to create a situation of turmoil. An oberservation of requirement of sanction of prosecution was also made. ( 8 ) THE State Government filed S. L. P. before the Supreme Court in which on 12-5-1995 an interim stay was granted. The arrest of Sadhvi Ritumbhara was given a political colour and some persons wanted to create a situation of turmoil. ( 9 ) AN objection has been raised that the petition under Section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not main table without the consent of Advocate General, which has not been obtained in this case. It has also been asserted that interlocutory application (l. A. No. 1824/95) for taking suo motu cognizance deserves dismissal. It has, then been submitted No. 1 does not remember accurately as to the subject matter on which he spoke. He also not remember as to whether he used words as published in newspaper - Nai Dunia on 28-4-1995, in Swadesh on 2-5-1995, in Dainik Bhaaskar on 4-5-1995, in Prabhat Kiran on 10-6-1995 and in Dainik Bhaskar and Chautha Sansar on 7-8-1995. He neither tried nor intended to interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. ( 10 ) THE fact of assertion that Honble Supreme Court has approved the action of the State Government has been denied. It was then submitted that firstly he does not remember what exact words he spoke at the lapse of many months. Secondly, he neither indented to nor obstructed the cause of administration of justice. The answering respondent holds the Court in highest regarded. Lastly, it has been submitted that if the Honble Court finds that the statements given and reported in newspapers are, improper, respondent expresses deep regret for the same, An, affidavit alongwith the reply has also been filed. ( 11 ) THE respondent No. 2 in his reply to show cause notice has submitted that the news item published, in TChautha Sansar (Ex. p /13) does not in anyway interfere in the course of justice. Even otherwise the statement published is not evidence of statement. The respondent has expressed his opinion about Sadhvi Ritumbhara like any other, citizen which he is entitled to. It has further been submitted that Sadhvi is not expected to have any interest in worldly affairs and activities of Sadhu/ Sanyasi are expected, to, remain confined only to spiritual attainment and preaching. The respondent has expressed his opinion about Sadhvi Ritumbhara like any other, citizen which he is entitled to. It has further been submitted that Sadhvi is not expected to have any interest in worldly affairs and activities of Sadhu/ Sanyasi are expected, to, remain confined only to spiritual attainment and preaching. Even Ritumbharaji has riot controverted the said statement. ( 12 ) THE petitioner thereafter, filed rejoinder. It has been submitted that respondent No. 2 instead of submitting unconditional apology contended that Sadhvi Ritumbhara is making large number of statements surrounding political parties and indicating her predisposition in favour of a particular political party as such, everybody is entitled, to form his opinion about her conduct. This has caused interference. In the cause of justice. ( 13 ) AFTER the replies were filed in M. Cr. C. No. 2414195 (present petition) and the case was ripe for final arguments this M. Cr. C. No. 195/96 has been filed by two petitioners referred to above on 22-1-1996. Almost same facts have been reiterated in the earlier part of the petition. After making a challenge to the sanction granted by the Government of M. P. under its Department of Law; it is- submitted that S. L. P. (Cri) No. 1886-87 of 1995 challenging the orders dated 27-4-1995 and 5-5- 1995 (Exs. P/i andp/2 in M. Cr. C. No. 195196) filed by the State has been disposed of by the Honble Supreme Court with following orders: Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The, respondent Sadhvi Ritumbhara, has already been released. It is stated by Mr. D. O. Thakur, the learned Senior, Counsel for the respondent, that the State would be free to proceed with the pending, matters i. e. not only concerned F. I. R. , but also the other connected matters between the parties. The Courts below would proceed and decide the cases uninfluenced by any of the findings, and observations made by the High Court in the Impugned, order and purely based on the merits of the case. Mr. The Courts below would proceed and decide the cases uninfluenced by any of the findings, and observations made by the High Court in the Impugned, order and purely based on the merits of the case. Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior Counsel for the appellant, has very fairly agreed for this, suggestion In view of the above very fair stand taken by both the counsel, we reiterate that the Courts below are free to dispose of all the pending or connected matters between the parties on their merits without being influenced by any of the findings and observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( 14 ) ON 9-9-1995 i. e. , on succeeding day of passing of order by the Supreme Court newspapers Dainik, Bhaskar, Nay Bharat Chautha Sansar, Chetna, Nai Duni (indore and Bhopal) and some other papers published a news under caption - Sadhvi Ritumbhara arrest is legal- Supreme Court accords permission for prosecution of Sadhvi, Ritumbhara, Some newspapers published that - In a significant judgment Supreme Court has held the action taken by the State Government against. Sadhvi Ritumbhara for delivering: inflamatory speech at Udainagar in Dewas and Court has given permission to initiate proceedings. It is then submitted that the news were published at the behest of respondent No. 1 and distributed through respondents No. 2 and 3 (in M. Cr. C. No: 195/96) Joint Director and Assistant Director, Public Relations. These respondents have tried, to circumvent the orders of Honble Supreme Court. It is noteworthy that proceedings against the news published construing the orders of the Supreme Court was initiated before the Apex Court of this country. The Apex Court has disposed of Contempt Petition No. 1/97 with respect to Criminal Appeal No. 1 085-86/95 decided on 17-2-1997 (as published in) Sadhvi Ritumbhara v. Digvyaysingh1) and, thereby, held one of the condemners (Assistant Director Public Relations) guilty of contempt, but as it was held not to have been -done deliberately to undermine the orders of this Court. The Apex Court then expressed dissatisfaction about the, role of second contemner (Director Public Relations), and accepted the apology rendered unconditionally. In view of above, no action is, required to be taken, with respect to alleged publication of news interpreting the order of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court then expressed dissatisfaction about the, role of second contemner (Director Public Relations), and accepted the apology rendered unconditionally. In view of above, no action is, required to be taken, with respect to alleged publication of news interpreting the order of the Supreme Court. ( 15 ) NOW, therefore this Courts required to decide and determine, as to whether the statement as alleged has been made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and whether the same amounts to contempt of Court and what action if any, is required to be taken in the matter? ( 16 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. G. Mahespwari is that by making statement in the Press and causing aspersion: about the conduct of Sadhvi Ritumbhara the two respondents caused prejudice to the case of Sadhvi Rituinbhara, who was an accused and whose case is pending in the High Court itself and. thereby have committed criminal contempt which is covered under Section 2 (c) (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971. In has further been submitted that evasive reply has been given which amounts to admission under the law. Pronouncement at various places which was published in the newspapers continuously for about a week goes to show that the two respondents wanted to malign the accused who was facing, a trial. The statements were published during the period between 28-4- 1995 and 7-8-1995 and this application was filed on 24-8-1995. Thus, the action has been initiated promptly. There is no delay on the part of the petitioner has also been submitted that the pendency of the case in the Supreme Court was to the knowledge of the two respondents, but gespite that they made statements which were published. Learned counsel drew our attention to Exs. P/7, P/8, P1/9, P/10, Pill. P112, P/13, and P/30 and submitted that the news published has not been contradicted: that amounts to admission of news published. Thus, deliberate contempt of Court has been committed by the two respondents, therefore, they deserve to be suitably dealt with under Contempt of Court Act, 1991 and punished accordingly. ( 17 ) AS to the objection raised about lack of permission by Advocate General under Section 15 (1) (a- b) it has been submitted that Advocate General appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. ( 17 ) AS to the objection raised about lack of permission by Advocate General under Section 15 (1) (a- b) it has been submitted that Advocate General appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. He was appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister and, therefore, the petitioner had apprehension about the fair treatment at the hands of Advocate General and there was no possibility of permission being granted and, therefore, they filed an for taking suo motu cognizance by this Courts. The apology tendered is conditional; the respondents have not come with clean hands and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. The conditional apology further necessitated action against the contemnors. ( 18 ) IN impugnation and reply, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. K. Parasaram, on the other hand, has submitted that the Court can always take suo motu cognize of contempt. In that case no permission of Advocate General would be necessary, but there is no proof that respondents have made any statement which tends to prejudice the case of Sadhvi Ritumbhara or tends to interfere in the judicial proceedings, Newspaper reports by itself are not legal evidence, thus there is no adequate material for initiating action under Contempt of Courts Act. It has further been submitted that despite there being no proof the respondents (alleged condemners) have shown highest regard to the Court and tendered apology. The apology cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional as the same has been made bona fide. ( 19 ) WE have hared rival contention of the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The objection as to the maintainability of the petition is not required to be decided as learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded and rightly so that the Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt. Now therefore, what is required to be determined and decided in the case is as to whether contemnors deserve to be punished? The objection as to the maintainability of the petition is not required to be decided as learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded and rightly so that the Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt. Now therefore, what is required to be determined and decided in the case is as to whether contemnors deserve to be punished? ( 20 ) SECTION 2 (c) (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines Criminal Contempt, which reads as under: 2 (c) (ii) Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible respondention, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act what so ever which prejudices, or interferes or tends to interferes with, the due course of any judicial proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case would be covered under Sub-clause (ii) of Section 1 (c) of the Act, Thus it has to be seen, as to hold that the respondents interfered in the due course of justice or prejudiced the mankind against the petitioners No. 2 Sadhivi Rithumbhara. In both these petitions only news paper reports have been referred. Petitioner has filed affidavit in support of it and sworn that the contents are true to be knowledge and the legal submissions are true to his information received from his counsel. None of the petitioners have stated on affidavit or otherwise that they were present at the time of alleged pronouncement or statement made by the two respondents (condemners ). The two respondents have by way of reply, stated that they do not remember to have made statement as published in the newspapers referred to above. In such a situation the petitioner would not be absolved from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of facts as appeared in Press reports. No second affidavit has been filed tin date though, during the course of reply after arguments by opposite counsel an offer for further affidavit and production of evidence was made, but that would be too late in the day. Thus, it is to be seen as to whether there is prima facie proof of the fact of making of statements and pronouncements which tend to interfere in the process of justice. Reference may be had to a case reported in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Anr. 2. Thus, it is to be seen as to whether there is prima facie proof of the fact of making of statements and pronouncements which tend to interfere in the process of justice. Reference may be had to a case reported in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Anr. 2. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to a case reported in (In re: P. C. Sen3, appellant) and submitted that the public statements made by respondent No. 1. who is the ,chief Minister of the State has prejudiced the mankind against. Sadhvi Ritumbhara and thereby he has tried to interfere in the due course of justice. In such a situation it is the duty of the Court to take suo motu cognizance. In the case referred above - there was a broadcasting by public under taking; the same was not denied. Para 5 of the said judgment further shows that offending news was in fact broadcast by the Chief Minister on the All India Radio. Calcutta station. He filed affidavit belatedly after the evidence was recorded. In this case the two respondents have denied the fact of having made statements by stating that they do not remember to have made such statement. It is note worthy that the Chief Minister or any other Minister or political person are often required to answer querries made by correspondents of newspapers. Many times the news are published with colouration. Many facts are interpreted by the printers of newspapers according to their political ideology. Sometimes there is ornamentation of the facts stated before them and. therefore every news published cannot be taken to be gospel truth. Newspaper reports are evidence of secondary evidence but no judicial notice about the proof of the fact can be taken merely on the basis of Press reports. Party relying on the reports of newspaper is required to prove the fact by legal evidence. In this case the same is lacking (See. Ch. Bhajanlals case (supra ). ( 22 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in S. N. Balkrishna v. Femandez4 observed as follows: - Further we have ruled out news items which it is the function of the newspaper to publish. A news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. A news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it On to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be, taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible Newspaper which has published the pronouncement or statement cannot be said to be the agent of two respondents. It is not the Press note released by the Government at the instance of respondents No. 1 and 2 and therefore, the news reports by itself cannot be taken to be proof of pronouncement made. In such a situation it would be difficult for this Court to take suo motu cognizance of the offence on the basis of such evidence which is not admissible under the law. ( 23 ) SADHVI Ritumbhara, is a public figure, she appears to be a religious leader and social worker. Such persons therefore, should normally be prepared for mild ridicule, as has been held in M. Kalyana Sundaram, and Anr. v. Karunanidhi5. which reads thus: Where a suit was filed by the Chief Minister for alleged defamatory publication made in a journal and the institution of suit which was given out as news item in newspapers was also published in the journal proceeded against alongwith a cartoon which exposed the Chief-Minister to mildridicule the publication in the journal could not be said to amount to a civil contempt as there was no disobedience, of any order of a Court nor breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The publication would, not amount to a criminal contempt also as it did not prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with judicial proceedings and as the ridicule was mild and the suitor. Chief Minister was a well known public figure well able to bear with equanimity any ridicule poured on him. A person leading public life many time is required to face unpleasing situation including the situation of mild ridicule. A person coming into contact of such public figures are free to form their own opinion. A person may proclaim to be a leader of the District. A person leading public life many time is required to face unpleasing situation including the situation of mild ridicule. A person coming into contact of such public figures are free to form their own opinion. A person may proclaim to be a leader of the District. State or the Nation as the case may be. Similarly the person, in reaction of such proclamation can reject the same with equal force. The character and conduct of sadhu. saints and priests are matters of subjective belief and satisfaction. A person may be accepted to be a figure of religious order by a section of the people but the other section has got equal right to reject, such person as person of religious order and. therefore; if any statement is made that a particular person in not a person of religious order or that he cannot be accepted to be a person of religious order that would amount to causing prejudice to the mankind and. therefore, it respondent No. 2 has though not proved made a statement that he does not accept Sadhvi Ritumbhara to be a sadhvi or a person of religious order it cannot be said that he has tried to cause prejudice to the mankind against her. Every individual has got a right to form opinion against the other person if the restriction is put on such formation of opinion the constituttonal guarantee of freedom of speech would become a farce. ( 24 ) IN our considered opinion therefore, even if the fact of pronouncement made by respondent No. 2 is published in Exs. P/12 and P/13 is found to be true the same would be within the right of freedom of expression and. cannot amount to causing prejudice to the mankind against petitioner No. 2. If a sadhu or sadhvi or person of religious order addresses on political problems or problems raising social controversies exposes himself to discussion by public the reason is that the person of such religious order travels from his/her religious work and descends into arena of politics. The person of religious order cannot take shelter behind his or her office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him/her. The person of religious order cannot take shelter behind his or her office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him/her. ( 25 ) A similar question was raised before their Lordships of the Supreme court in a case reported in Rampratap v. Dayanand6 observed a below: It is necessary to state here that if any Judge addresses on political problems or controversies the Judge exposes himself to discussion by public. The reason is that the Judge travels from his judicial work and descends into the arena of politics and parties. The judge cannot in such a case take shelter be, hind his office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him. The reason is obvious. It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a duty in discharge of office of a judge to go and address a meeting on political matters to redress grievances of the people. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred cases reported in Preetampal v. High Court of M. P. 7. In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra8 and Ramautar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla and Ors. 9 and submitted that Court should take serious note of every act which causes interfence in the due course of justice. We are in agreement so far as the principle stated by learned counsel is concerned but the three cases referred to are absolutely on different facts. In Preetampals case (supra) advocate made libelous statement against sitting Judge of the High Court and. therefore, action was taken and further observed that the power of Supreme Court and High Court to punish contempt is not excluded or travelled by ordinary legislation. Of course the procedure should be fair: In the second case practicing advocate resented question asked by Judge tried to brow beat insult and show disrespect personally to judge and created scene in the court. All these acts were calculated to interfere and obstruct course of Justice. This again is hot the case here. In the third case referred to above respondent fabricated Court proceedings and impersonated the petitioner produced fabricated documents (Courtts interim order) before the competent authority with intent to gain unfair advantage overt the, petitioner and. therefore, the act was held to be amounting to contempt of Supreme Court. This is again not the case here. In the third case referred to above respondent fabricated Court proceedings and impersonated the petitioner produced fabricated documents (Courtts interim order) before the competent authority with intent to gain unfair advantage overt the, petitioner and. therefore, the act was held to be amounting to contempt of Supreme Court. This is again not the case here. ( 27 ) THUS, we find that, there is no prima-facie proof of commission of contempt and making of statement which tends to interfere in the process of justice or prejudices the case of Sadhvi Ritumbhara Secondly, the statements made by respondeht No. 2 about petitioner No. 2 Sadhvi Ritumbhara: as her not being a Sadhvi cannot be taken to be a legal offence or a word amounting to prejudice her case before the Court. ( 28 ) NOW, coming to the apology, the respondents have denied the fact of making deliberate statements by saying that they do not remember that they had, made such statements and, thereafter, have stated, that if the statement is found to be contemptuous they express regret. Though the, word apology has not Come but the expression of regret in the background would amount to apology. ( 29 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that such conditional apology is not an apology and, therefore the same cannot be accepted. In the earlier paragraph we have found that, there is no prima facie proof of commission of contempt and. therefore, we are not required to discuss the factum of apology. However, as the point has been raised we would like to answer the same. Explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that ail apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide Learned counsel tried to refer certain cases which appear to be prior to the coming into force of Contempt of. Courts Act, 1971, but those cases are of no help to the petitioners. What is required for accepting apology is that there should be finding of committal of contempt. The question of acceptance of apology would arise thereafter. Reference maybe had to A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 809 (Supra) which reads as under: The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that, there is to be a finding of committal of contempt. What is required for accepting apology is that there should be finding of committal of contempt. The question of acceptance of apology would arise thereafter. Reference maybe had to A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 809 (Supra) which reads as under: The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that, there is to be a finding of committal of contempt. The deponents stated that if the Court is of the view that the letter of the deponents constitute for any reason contempt of Court the deponents tender apology. It is conditional apology. The condition is that if there is contempt the respondents tender apology. In the absence of any finding by the High court that the appellants committed any Contempt of Court there was never any occasion for acceptance of apology. T ( 30 ) A person can bona fide believe theft particular act does not amount to contempt. He is free to plead it and if he further pleads that if the act is found to be contemptuous he tenders apology, the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is conditional (unless there is lack of bona fide ). Reference may be had to a case reported in K. Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer. Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Ors. 1 where in their Lordships, of the, Supreme Court observed as follows: we are not prepared to hold that he was lacking bona fide in entertaining that belief. The 3rd respondent has also tendered a conditional apology stating that in case it is found that he has committed any contempt, he may be pardoned, We think that the apology tendered though conditional is sufficient in View of the explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts, Act 1971 which reads: An apology shall hot be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. We accept the apology and discharge the rule nisi. ( 31 ) COMING to the facts of this case if in the background of the facts, stated above respondents have expressed regret the same: cannot be said to be lacking, in bona fide and may be accepted. However, as we have not found the fact of, contempt proved and, therefore, question of acceptance of apology does not arise. ( 31 ) COMING to the facts of this case if in the background of the facts, stated above respondents have expressed regret the same: cannot be said to be lacking, in bona fide and may be accepted. However, as we have not found the fact of, contempt proved and, therefore, question of acceptance of apology does not arise. ( 32 ) BEFORE losing the, case we, would like to observe that a balance has, to be struck between the fundamental, right of speech, freedom of expression and Contempt of Court; Every act, expression or pronouncement even distantly or indirectly touching the pending proceedings should not be treated to be a Contempt of Court. The judicial activism has increased accountability of the Court and therefore fair and bonafide expression: made touching the proceedings of Court unless it tends to interfere in the due course of justice judicial proceedings) should not be taken to be a Contempt of Court. ( 33 ) THE responsibility of persons filing petitions by way of public interest litigation has also increased in the same proportion: they should be very discreet while bringing cases by way of P. I. L. before the Court. Court should not be used as platform for setting political disputes. However it does not mean that person including persons in authority political leader sand workers go on making statement which tends to interfere, in the due process of justice: We hope that persons in authority shall refrain, from intermeddling or making speech in any way tends to interference in the due process of justice or in any way6 causes prejudicle to the case of party in pending proceedings. ( 34 ) AS we do not find prima facie proof of making of statements and pronouncement which tends to interference in the due process of justice, two petitions deserve dismissal. As a result, both petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A copy of this order be kept in M. Cr. C. No. 195/96 ). Petition dismissed. .