Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. A lawyer is the applicant in this matter, Mr. Shrinath Pathak, by name. He complains that a Cabinet Minister of the State holding the portfolio of Minister of Excise, is in contempt for "scandalizing" the High Court in statements to the Press, that he has denigrated the dignity of the High Court so as to lower its image in the eyes of the Public, and his statements tend to interfere with the independence in functioning of the judiciary. The Court will deal with this matter later. Firstly, it is necessary to record the manner in which the present contempt action has been inserted into the records of the High Court. On Thursday 21 August, 2003, during the afternoon session of the Court, Mr. Pathak, as a lawyer, interrupted the proceedings by interjection mentioning that the Court must notice what a Cabinet Minister has said to the Press. In his hand he carried a newspaper which he brandished before the Court. He said that the Court should take suo motu notice on the statements of the Minister. The Court indicated to him in no uncertain terms that this was no way to make a mention, by interrupting proceedings of the Court; that the Court had no intention of issuing a suo motu notice of motion in this matter and that if any matter comes to the Court it will be dealt with. Mr. Pathak insisted that the Court take out notice, the Court told him that there is no occasion for the Court to act, and if a formal cause is filed the Court will consider it as it deems fit. 2. What Mr. Pathak did subsequently is not very correct. He was fully conscious of the fact that what he was proposing or mentioning came within the classification of criminal contempt. There is no doubt in this. He had made a mention that the division of the Chief Justice take out suo motu proceedings as criminal contempt and issue a notice to a Minister who is said to have made some statements in the Press. Mr. Pathak is a lawyer. He is also counsel for the Government of India. There is no doubt in this. He had made a mention that the division of the Chief Justice take out suo motu proceedings as criminal contempt and issue a notice to a Minister who is said to have made some statements in the Press. Mr. Pathak is a lawyer. He is also counsel for the Government of India. He can hardly pretend not to know that the matter in which he required the Court to take suo motu action would be a case which will become a matter, if cognizance is taken, before this Bench, that is the division in the Chief Justices Court. 3. But then Mr. Pathak went to the newspapers announcing that he had filed a Petition alleging criminal contempt and that this case of his would be taken up for hearing the next day. The case of Mr. Pathak could not be located. Had he filed the case before the court where he fully knew the jurisdiction lay? He did not. He filed an interlocutory application in the Registry in a pending case, and it joined the records and lay there suppressed by the weight of several pending cases. Mr. Pathak had not filed a petition for criminal contempt, and what he had filed was in a wrong court. The Registry could not locate his case until it asked Mr. Pathak himself where exactly he had lodged his case, reported in the Press. It is then that Mr. Pathak declared that he had filed a miscellaneous application, to join the records in another court. This was not correct. In a matter, which according to Mr. Pathak is so serious that he should make allegations against a Minister, the filing of the case should be above board, and should not seem to suggest that the man who complains is choosing his Court. Mr. Pathak knew that he was complaining of criminal contempt by spoken words or otherwise by publication, this was not a contempt in the face of a court. The forum lay in this Court. 4. Mr. Pathak didnt seem to show any regret and continues to claim that what he filed, wherever he filed it, was justified. 5. However the application of Mr. The forum lay in this Court. 4. Mr. Pathak didnt seem to show any regret and continues to claim that what he filed, wherever he filed it, was justified. 5. However the application of Mr. Pathak, when traced out, was marked to the appropriate jurisdiction by address and formality and placed before this Court and registered as Original Criminal Miscellaneous 12 of 2003, Srinath Pathak vs. Shivanand Tiwary. 6. Now the matter itself. 7. This Court has carefully read and re-read the publication which is appended with the matter before the Court. The publication was carried out on August 21, 2003 in the HINDUSTAN TIMES, Patna Edition. 8. May be what was said ought not to have been said, and if said, it could have been expressed in a better way. But taking into account all that has been said, the Court views the situation very differently. 9. The public justice system, of which the High Court is part, functions in public gaze. Its doors open in the morning and close only after the Courts rise at the end of the day. The cases are put in the Cause List in a serial order. The cases are taken up one by one. Between the lawyer who presents the case and the other side, who opposes the case, whether for the State or any other adversary, the arguments take place in an open Court room. The law requires this, and the Court system discharges its obligation in a public forum. The public justice system is accountable to the people, except that it must function within the framework of the law so structured for operation under the Constitution of India. It is the only institution of the nation which transacts its business in public gaze. Of the causes which come before a Court the issues are debated in Court and the judgment is presented in Court. 10. There is no other institution in which a citizen can walk inside and be face to face with those who are to judge a cause. You need an appointment to meet the Chief Minister or a Minister, the appointment may be granted or not. You need an appointment to call on the Governor of the State. 10. There is no other institution in which a citizen can walk inside and be face to face with those who are to judge a cause. You need an appointment to meet the Chief Minister or a Minister, the appointment may be granted or not. You need an appointment to call on the Governor of the State. Ordinary people cannot even meet the District Magistrate in any part of the nation because the bureaucracy seems to have maintained much of the formality of the Raj, with individual exceptions. Enlightened District Magistrates do make themselves available. Secretaries to the Government cannot be met, for there is so much to cross through between the corridors of the Secretariate, the personal assistant and yet more, and the whole thing is often like a joke, put in a cartoon by Shankar or Lakshman. 11. Returning to the Court, all that one has to do is to file a case if one is presenting it himself, as the present applicant did. At present we are not on the aspect that causes may be frivolous or ill-advised. The point this Court is making is that all that a litigant has to do is engage a lawyer and file a case and the matter comes up before the Court the next day. The proceedings are transacted under the eyes of the public, there is no secrecy about it. 12. The order of the Court, a judgment in a case, is an adjudication between two parties. When a Judge judging a cause makes an error, its the Courts error. No institution is perfect, and a Court system is not an exception. Right from the decision from the lowest Court of the land, the Munsif, a dissatisfied person utilizes the tiered structure to appeal until the Court of last resort. All this also happens in front of the public, and the public may have its opinions and discuss it rationally. People are free to do so. 13. People come to the Court because they have a problem, which necessitates adjudication. Sometimes this is personal, on other occasions it is a grievance against the State. !f all these problems could have been sorted out within the administrative structure, there would be no reason for anyone to come to the High Court. People are free to do so. 13. People come to the Court because they have a problem, which necessitates adjudication. Sometimes this is personal, on other occasions it is a grievance against the State. !f all these problems could have been sorted out within the administrative structure, there would be no reason for anyone to come to the High Court. The citizens use the public justice system in public causes brought before the High Court in the expectation that their legitimate grievances may be solved. They come in hope, and in hearing them the Court is not "satisfying its ego" as the Hon ble Minister has said, but doing its duty. 14. Such litigants treat the High Court as a glorified Ombudsman. In some other nations where democracy functions, there is such an institution as Ombudsman. The Procurator General or the Parliamentary Commissioner in Administration. But, the Government provides this forum. It does not exist in this State in its effectiveness as it exists in the rest of the world. At the national level, the institution is non-existent. 15. The Hon ble Minister is not incorrect when he says the judiciary should put its house in order. He is not incorrect when he says the High Court cannot "provide relief to the poor". The Court does not desire to join issues with the Hon ble Minister. There is much which is incorrect all over which needs to be corrected. 16. For instance, the public does not know the handicaps under which the High Court functions. Let us make a comparison. The Government functions with its full complement of Ministers, and at times, if this can be taken with a little bit of humour, with a few extras, since everyone in politics has to be pleased when there are many parties to share the Government. The Legislature functions to its full capacity. In a bi-cameral Legislature like Bihar, the High Court helped both the Government and Legislature, by ensuring that the seats in the upper house were filled. Now the contrast. A man on the street when he sees the High Court building in its splendour and regality with the national flag flying, has the impression that the system is working like a clock with all parts in position. This is not so. The High Court has had vacancies on its Bench. Now the contrast. A man on the street when he sees the High Court building in its splendour and regality with the national flag flying, has the impression that the system is working like a clock with all parts in position. This is not so. The High Court has had vacancies on its Bench. It functions at times with about one-third of its strength missing. Litigation does not decrease, and with indiscriminate filing, whoever does it and the State is not excluded in thisthe docket explosion does not cease. The High Court cannot throw the litigant out. It must read every petition, whether genuine or frivolous. The High Court does not invite people, but yet it cannot stop citizens from coming with simple but serious complaints. Sometimes for the citizen who comes it is a matter of life and death. The Patna High Court is tied up in a jaal of pensions not paid, of provident funds not delivered, of retirement benefits withheld, as trust accounts as provident funds having disappeared en bloc, of public work not donewho will solve these problems? If the Government can solve these problems without the High Court coming in, nothing could be better. This is what the High Court wants. 17. One thing also needs to be remembered, that the judiciary is the weakest link of the Government. It cannot defend itself. To protect the Judiciary, if democracy is to survive, is the obligation of the Government and the people. The judiciary faces attacks from within and without. Attacks from within are when falsehoods are brought into Court and someone takes away an order on a judgment and it turns out later that whatever was said in the cause was incorrect, and the judiciary has judged on what was brought to it. This has become rampant whether falsity in assertions made before the lowest court, the munsif the Civil Judge, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the District Judge, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Some truths surface but by that time the damage has been done, because the Courts cannot speak to each other and falsehood scars the sanctity of proceedings for all times to come. Public justice must be imparted on truth. Untruth is an attack. This is attack from within. 18. Some truths surface but by that time the damage has been done, because the Courts cannot speak to each other and falsehood scars the sanctity of proceedings for all times to come. Public justice must be imparted on truth. Untruth is an attack. This is attack from within. 18. Of attacks from outside, it must be said that the functioning of a court system, the orders delivered by courts, its views and judgments, are public properties. The judiciary is not above criticism. The judiciary has very broad shoulders. The judiciary can take a lot of criticism, though it needs to be remembered that whether court, judiciary or judge, none can defend themselves and reply to criticism. The system has not been structured that way. The fact remains, then, that much depends on those who criticize, on what they say and how they say it. The weakest arm of the Government should be seen to receive protection of the other arms of the Government. There is nothing the judiciary can do except deliver its orders and judgments, the execution of them is in any case in the hands of the Government. The day finality to judgments and orders will not be given it will be the death knell to democracy. The Ministers remarks do not go so far. 19. Criticism is a dialogue, whether under our ancient system of shastrarth or as found in Plato. A dialectical analysis which rests on a dialogue which is constructive is good for the Republic. While the judiciary cannot restrain criticism on its working, it does expect that who criticise will be kind to this weakest organ of the Government, which is limbless in its defense. But in this case, the High Court will not gag the Hon ble Minister, he is free to say what he has said. 20. The application as was filed and converted to a Criminal Contempt action, is consigned.