JUDGMENT The Court: A news published in the (Sunday) Statesman, Calcutta dated 27.07.1997 has given rise to the instant application. The petitioner is an advocate of this court. The respondents are a former Attorney General of India, the Editor-in-Chief of the (Sunday) Stateman, the Managing Editor and the publication itself. 2. The first respondent, while speaking generally in respect of the conditions of service of the Judges and other allied subjects, purportedly made certain observations on judicial appointments. His observations, according to the petitioner, tended to scandalise or lower the authority of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice. Other respondents by publishing the said statements, aided and abetted the commission of the offence of the contempt of court by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent has shown cause and stated that there were certain inaccuracies in the report in the newspaper and that his observations therein also contained some inaccuracies. He has stated that he had bona fide expressed his views on a particular topic and there was no element of malice in his statements. The Editor-in-Chief has stated that the publication was bona fide report by a staff Reporter of a talk delivered by a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India and a former Attorney General of India without any malice and when inaccuracies in the report were pointed out later by the former Attorney General, they were published in the issue of the Statesman dated 31.7.1997. 4. We have not gone further than stating in short how the instant application has been filed by a learned Advocate of this Court and how the publication has appeared to the petitioner as a cause for action for contempt of court, for, while we do appreciate the concern of the learned Advocate (the petitioner) for the majesty and dignity of the Court, we at the same time do not find ourselves scandalised or maligned by the publication of the view (talk) of a senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India in respect of the procedure as envisaged under the Constitution of India for selection and appointment of the Judges of the Superior Courts and the service conditions of the Judges including the Judges of the Subordinate Courts. 5. 5. It is often said that the power of these superior courts to punish for contempt is not intended for being used as a sword against anything and everything that is said in respect to the judicial system and the Judges. It is used primarily for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and justice and not the majesty of the Judges. If someone has experienced or has known about certain happening which has caused apprehensions in his mind about the quality of justice that the courts would deliver and has expressed his views with the intention to improve and strengthen the system, he cannot be hauled up for contempt for something said with such intentions as above-such intentions cannot be said to be either scandalizing or lowering the authority and dignity of the court. 6. Thus, in our view, the matter deserves no further action. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.