ORDER Part - I A hand written appeal under -section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been presented by appellant Mr. K.A.H. Subramanian describing himself as the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, stating and submitting to seek stay of further proceedings in a miscellaneous jurisdiction case (MJC. No. 3405 of 1999). The appellant undertakes to formalise the application by his affidavit today and append a copy of the bail bond in his possession and shown to the court; the original has been sent by the Registrar General. The undertaking given is accepted. It be acted upon today. 2. The contention in the appeal is, to the effect, that further proceedings will ensue today when the court convenes at noon with a time set for the proceedings, as indicated in the bail bond at 2.15 P.M., this afternoon. 3. It is also contended that notwithstanding that the appellant saw indictment and imprisonment, it necessitated that the appellant furnish a personal bond, other wise the appellant would have been in custody. Factually, on record and the bail bond is evidence of it, the appellant would have been in custody but for the bail sought. Thus, the appeal. Part II 4. In so far as the appeal is concerned there is nothing complicated in which the court has to exercise its discretion. Sub clause (1) of Section 19 of the. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in no uncertain terms says "an appeal shall lie as of right", Thus, this appeal has been rightly filed. 5. The appellant Mr. K.A.H. Subramanian, IAS, Chief. Secretary, seeks stay of proceedings on several grounds, stated and submitted. It is not necessary to go into any of these at present. The same Section 19 prescribes that if an order has led to a conviction, appeal may be sustained, against such an order. The fact that the appellant sought bail, it is manifest on the record, that his liberty was curtailed, he was to be put in jail, thus he applied for bail. Custody or detention is an order without which it would not happen. Thus, the whole of the issue is now before the appellate court. 6. The order which put the appellant in custody necessitating release on a bail bond supported by sureties, is stayed until further orders. 7. Custody or detention is an order without which it would not happen. Thus, the whole of the issue is now before the appellate court. 6. The order which put the appellant in custody necessitating release on a bail bond supported by sureties, is stayed until further orders. 7. But this is not the end of the entire issue, and there is a limit beyond which the Court, and one of us (the Chief Justice) cannot keep certain matters in the functioning of a State policy within our chest. Today, a newspaper, Dainik Jagran, Patna, carries a report that the Chief Minister telephoned the Chief Justice in this matter last evening. 8. Unprecedented as it may seem, if certain situations have the making of destroying a system then they must be recorded for posterity. 9. Last evening after the court rose for the day, and the Chief Justice along with some of his brethren Judges finished the proceedings of the Standing Committee, the Principal Private Secretary informed the Chief Justice that the Chief Minister had telephoned. The assistant of the Chief Minister seemed to rush and press the Principal Private Secretary, who in turn, forthwith submitted a note to the Registrar. The note of the Principal Private Secretary records that the Chief Justice is in a bench with another Hon'ble Judge in the Chief Justice's Court and thereafter there is a meeting of the standing committee and that he (the PPS) will give the message to the Hon'ble Chief Justice perhaps immediately after the Standing Committee meeting. This was done. With the Registrar General present in chambers, it is only due courtesy that if any of the other two functionaries of the State, whether the Governor or the Chief Minister, will call, the Chief Justice will respond. Thus, the call was responded to on the urgent business on which the Chief Minister desired to speak. The Chief Justice listened to what the Chief Minister had to say. The Chief Minister spoke on the contempt proceedings before a Division of the Court, critically. The Chief Minister also desired that the Chairman of the ruling party should speak to the Chief Justice, which he did. 10. Whatever was said to the Chief Justice who had no choice but to listen. 11. These are dangerous trends. Judges err, the judges are not infallible. The Chief Minister also desired that the Chairman of the ruling party should speak to the Chief Justice, which he did. 10. Whatever was said to the Chief Justice who had no choice but to listen. 11. These are dangerous trends. Judges err, the judges are not infallible. All the orders which are passed by the courts may not be correct, but a hierarchy of• courts keeps leaving its binding precedents. The Chief Justice does not take stock taking from judges, the system was not structured that way. Judges should not speak between different courts or divisions. That is not the system. All cannot be spoken today and in this order. This matter needs much more reflection. What if this court had to pass an order on the call which was received from the Chief Minister? Then this would start another vicious proceeding and a conflict which in the terms of the Hon'ble august house of the legislature may be seen as a breach of privilege. This Court is not about to do that. 12. We will rest the proceedings with this order today. The Chief Minister also has much to think about. For today may not be appropriate to make a negative criticism of something which she may herself be looking into. Calling up the Chief Justice will not solve the problem. This is not working inside the system; it could destroy the system. 13. As the niceties and nuances of an Anglo-Saxon system give way to a new-found tuning, Judges will also have to rise to the occasion to wake up to the reality that those outside the Judicature did not come versed in Harald J. Laski's "A Grammar of Politics", and A.V.Dicey's "Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution". This Bench is totally conscious of this aspect. The Chief Justice is prepared to condone the incident in the same spirit as was said: "Father forgive hem for they know not what they do". 14. List after a month on 19 January 2004 under the same heading.