Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. In brief, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J, and S.Ashok Kumar, J, by order dated 5.12.2003, concededly, on the directions of the Apex Court dated 6.3.2003 in SLP Nos.4501-4502 of 2003, disposed W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003. 2. The operative portion of the order dated 5.12.2003 reads as follows: " 117. To sum up: (i) The writ petitions in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003, writ appeal in W.A.No.794 of 2003 and Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. (ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr.Karupan is found guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Re.1/- (One rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. " 3. Thereafter, Mr.R.Kaaruppan, petitioner/appellant in those writ petitions, writ appeals and contempt petition, in his affidavit dated 9.12.2003, prayed to recall the said order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, and to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the same for fresh hearing, alleging that the petitioner came to know that the Presiding Judge of the Division bench, who passed the order dated 5.12.2003, namely M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J, was a friend of Sivanthi Adithyan, viz. the fourth respondent in W.P.No.20425 of 1999, second respondent in W.P.No.8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 and contending that the order dated 5.12.2003 was biased. 4. The relevant portion of the affidavit dated 9.12.2003 reads as follows: " ... I learnt from the inquisitive and concerned quarters that Sivanthi Adithyan and his son Balasubramina Adithyan are close friends of the Hon'ble Presiding Judge. I also learnt that due to such a relationship, the Hon'ble Judge was invited to preside over a function organized by Sivanthi Adithyan and his son. As advised I went to Connemara Library and looked into archives of the Daily Thanthi news paper run by Sivanthi Adithyan and his son. To my shock and disbelief I found in the issue dated 29.10.1999 in the first page the presiding Judge of this case had presided over the said function and had paid encomiums and tributes to Sivanthi Adithyan and his son. To my shock and disbelief I found in the issue dated 29.10.1999 in the first page the presiding Judge of this case had presided over the said function and had paid encomiums and tributes to Sivanthi Adithyan and his son. Two pages had been devoted to the said function. Speeches were made by Sivanthi Adithyan about the heritage of the learned Judge and about his background and academic accomplishments, his keen interest in acting in dramas etc. This depicted that there had been a long standing relationship between the presiding Judge and Sivanthi Adithyan. Equally the speech of the learned Judge appears that he knows even the father of the Sivanthi Adithyan. He also praised Sivanthi Adithyan and his son. In this background when the Chief Justice constituted a special bench presided over by him to hear these matter, the presiding judge should have recused himself. Or else in course of hearing fairly informed about this relationship with the respondent and his son, who were the subject matter of all the four cases. Had it been made known I would have sought the transfer of the case to some other Bench. In the light of this relationship the presiding officer was disqualified from the day one from hearing this case. Thereby the entire exercise is a nullity. The judgment is void-ab-initio. ... " 5. The affidavit of the petitioner dated 9.12.2003 seeking to recall the order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, was posted before us for maintainability, on the following grounds: (i) petition copy with necessary Court fees not paid; (ii) the provision of law not quoted; and (iii)neither the order copy or petition, typed set has been filed. 6. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.12.2003, at 3.15 p.m., Mr.R.Kaaruppan made the following endorsement before this Court: "Respected Lordships, I have circulated a letter seeking de listing of the matter and posting before the same Bench of Hon'ble MKVJ & SAJ (copy circulated). In anticipation that the Hon'ble c.J. would grant the same came to Court unprepared without any case laws. So I will not be able argue. Besides I have not been circulated with Office objection regd. Maintainability. Sd/- Petitioner in Person 15.12.03. " 7. In anticipation that the Hon'ble c.J. would grant the same came to Court unprepared without any case laws. So I will not be able argue. Besides I have not been circulated with Office objection regd. Maintainability. Sd/- Petitioner in Person 15.12.03. " 7. In the light of the above endorsement made by Mr.R.Kaaruppan on 15.12.2003, we passed the following order on 15.12.2003: " 3. From the above endorsement, it is clear that Mr.R.Kaaruppan (a) seeks to de list the matter and post the same before the same Division Bench consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J, and S.Ashok Kumar, J, for appropriate orders on his affidavit; (b) in anticipation of de listing the matter from this Bench and posting the same before the Division Bench consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam,J, and S.Ashok Kumar,J, he has come unprepared without any case laws to make his submissions; and (c) the grounds of objection for maintainability were not circulated to him. 4. We have given careful consideration to the endorsement of Mr.R.Kaaruppan referred to above. 5. We cannot agree with the request of Mr.R.Kaaruppan seeking adjournment on the ground that he has made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to de list the matter and post the same before the Division Bench, consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J, and S.Ashok Kumar, J, which passed the order dated 5.12.2003 and we reject the same as unsustainable in law, as the matter once posted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice before us, the said proceedings cannot be deferred, unless and otherwise directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice; and therefore, the prayer for bench-hunting has to be curbed as it would be against the administration of justice. 6. However, considering the other reasons submitted by Mr.R.Kaaruppan that he has not come prepared to make his submissions today (15.12.2003) and that he has not been furnished with the grounds of objection as to the maintainability, while we permit the petitioner to peruse the office note as to the grounds of objection for maintainability, the matter stands adjourned to 16.12.2003 at 2.15 pm for further arguments and disposal, in order to give him a fair opportunity to make his submissions. " 8. Accordingly, Mr.R.Kaaruppan was permitted to peruse the grounds of objection for maintainability. 9. " 8. Accordingly, Mr.R.Kaaruppan was permitted to peruse the grounds of objection for maintainability. 9. When the matter was again posted today for further hearing, Mr.R.Kaaruppan filed another affidavit dated 16.12.2003, which reads as follows: " AFFIDAVIT OF R.KAARUPPAN I am the deponent in the affidavit filed on 10.12.2003 before the Chief Judge of this Hon'ble Court and well acquainted with the facts herein mentioned cases. 1. I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to treat the copies of the letters submitted to the Chief Justice dated 15.12.03 as part and parcel of this affidavit. The copies of the same have been placed before this Hon'ble Court which your Lordships have perused yesterday itself. While I reiterating the contents of the letter, I submit yet another factor which I failed to mention. Now, the judgment of their Lordships, Mr.Justice M.Karpaga Vinayagam and Mr.Justice Ashok Kumar, Bench, is sought to be recalled only the ground of doctrine of bias on the ground that it was found that contesting respondent Mr.Sivanthi Adhithan and his son were close friends of his Lordship Mr.Karpaga Vinayagam, J. A similar such situation arose regarding Sivanthi Adhithan's son though not qualified being invited for the selection for Indian Team. I was denied in a tournament. In this regard an additional affidavit was filed and no counter was filed therein. The Bench preside over by His Lordship Mr.Justice Sirpurkar offered to deal with the same in his judgment but failed to do so. Even when a review application was filed without dealing this aspect about Sivanthi Adhithan's son illegally being invited is not dealt with. Mr.Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah was also a constituent of the said Bench. Even assuring that this Bench is competent to hear the mater His Lordship should recuse from hearing these cases relating to me and the very same respondent and his son. 2. I most respectfully submit that my plea before this Hon'ble Court that either of your Lordships recuse from this case in the light of the Supreme Court's decision reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. Page 513. 3. I submit that this case need to be adjourned until orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice regarding delisting and posting before the very same Bench which passed the order convicting me in my Contempt Application. 3. I submit that this case need to be adjourned until orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice regarding delisting and posting before the very same Bench which passed the order convicting me in my Contempt Application. Solemnly and sincerely affirmed } and stated before me this the } Sd/- 16th day of Dec.2003 at } Before me. Chennai and affixed his signature } before me. } Sd/- Advocate, Chennai. P.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 59, Law Chambers High Court Building (emphasis supplied) 10. During the course of the hearing, since it is averred that the letter written by Mr.R.Kaaruppan on 15.12.2003 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice is part and parcel of the affidavit dated 16.12.2003, after going through the averments stated in the letter dated 15.12.2003 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, we took a strong objection to the following contents of the letter dated 15.12.2003, which reads as follows: " ... Further only now after the furore did we realize why Mr.Justice Karpagavinayagam who never sat in the writ portfolio all these years was ever asked to adjudicate this case. Needless to state that the other companion Judge Mr.Justice Ashok Kumar was just elevated months back and is yet to sit in the writ jurisdiction. ... " 11. In response, Mr.R.Kaaruppan respectively withdrew the submissions found in paragraph 1, page 2, last five lines and also made necessary endorsement to that effect, which reads as follows: " I respectfully withdrawn the submissions found in para one, page 2 last five lines." 12. Inter alia, Mr.R.Kaaruppan, referring to the letter dated 15.12.2003 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice expressed apprehension to make submissions before this Bench on the ground that one of us (P.D. Dinakaran, J) was in a Division Bench which ordered imprisonment of Mr.R.Kaaruppan for two days in another contempt proceedings and that F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J, was also in a Division Bench, which imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/- on Mr.R.Kaaruppan by order dated 4.2.2003, which was the subject matter in SLP Nos.4501-4502 of 2003 dated 6.3.2003 referred to above. 13. 13. Mr.R.Kaarupan places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in P.K.GHOSH v. J.G.RAJUPT reported in AIR 1996 SC 513 , wherein it is held as follows: " A basic postulate of the rule of law is that 'justice should not only but it must also be seen to be done.' If there be a basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned Judge should recuse himself from the Bench hearing that matter. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but because his hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the mind of the learned Judge, may be subconsciously, has been influenced by some extraneous factor in making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in favour of the opposite party. Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done. ... " 14. But, we are unable to appreciate under what context and to what extent the ratio laid down by the Apex Court cited supra is violated. Obviously, the matter is posted before us to decide on maintainability. Even though Mr.R.Kaaruppan expressed his anguish that he had not been informed about the grounds of objection, he was permitted to peruse the records of the Court by order dated 15.12.2003 and accordingly, he also perused the same. Obviously, the matter is posted before us to decide on maintainability. Even though Mr.R.Kaaruppan expressed his anguish that he had not been informed about the grounds of objection, he was permitted to peruse the records of the Court by order dated 15.12.2003 and accordingly, he also perused the same. Nevertheless, he refrained himself from making submissions on those grounds of objections except reiterating his submissions that he had submitted a letter dated 15.12.2003 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to de list the matter from this Bench and post the same before the Division Bench consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J, and S.Ashok Kumar, J. But, we have already by our order dated 15.12.2003 rejected the said request of Mr.R.Kaaruppan, holding that the matter once posted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice before us, the proceedings of the same cannot be deferred, unless it is otherwise directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and therefore, the prayer for bench-hunting has to be curbed as it would be against the administration of justice. The grounds of apprehension expressed by Mr.R.Kaaruppan against both us and the reason for requesting us to recuse from hearing the matter, even without making any submission on the grounds of objection, in our considered opinion, is totally unsustainable and unwarranted. 15. We also find that the Division Bench, by their order dated 5.12.2003, came to the conclusion that the said writ petitions are not maintainable in law, only following the decision of the Apex Court dated 21.1.2000 made in SLP Nos.1072 to 1073 of 2000. 16. That apart, we are inclined to observe that the order dated 5.12.2003 sought to be recalled, referred to above, was posted under the following facts and circumstances of the case which are narrated in the said order itself. It is apt to refer the relevant portion of the said order dated 5.12.2003, which reads as follows: "52. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner himself is guilty of criminal contempt since he has published and circulated a pamphlet called FLAWS soon after the orders pronounced by the First Bench and the Second Bench in which publication of several references are made criticising the Chief Justice as well as the Judges of the other Division Benches and those references are in gross contempt of court for which suo motu action should be initiated by this Court. 53. 53. In regard to the first argument relating to the consent of the Advocate General, we do not propose to give any importance to the same as this Court would be very well called upon to decide the contempt issue, since we have taken cognizance of the alleged contemptuous act committed by the respondent. 54. As stated earlier, we do not find any material to show that the respondent Mr.Sivanthi Adityan has made any misstatement before this Court so as to mislead this Court to pass any order in his favour. On the other hand, it has to be stated that his stand is consistent. 55. But, the shocking feature is that the respondent would require this Court to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the petitioner, who filed contempt petition, for having circulated a pamphlet called FLAWS criticising the First Bench as well as the Second Bench with regard to their functioning, while passing judicial orders in his petitions. 56. The counsel for the respondent would also produce in the typed set the copy of the FLAWS, a news letter, printed, published and circulated by Karuppan, the party-in-person. As a matter of fact, it is the contention of the counsel that the pamphlet was served personally on the counsel Mr.P.S.Raman by the petitioner. ... 58. On going through the wordings in the Flaws, it is clear that they would certainly be construed to be contumacious, since there is a sarcastic criticism against the Judges of this Court including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. At the time of issuing notice, we have suitably advised Karuppan by asking him to realise his mistake in printing and publishing the remarks against the Judges of this Court in which he is practising and then file an affidavit. 59. We have sufficiently indicated our mind that Karuppan, the petitioner herein should not have resorted to such activities. However, we wanted to give opportunity to him to realise his mistake and asked him to file a suitable affidavit so as to enable this Court to drop the proceedings against him. Then, the matter was adjourned by giving sufficient time. 59. We have sufficiently indicated our mind that Karuppan, the petitioner herein should not have resorted to such activities. However, we wanted to give opportunity to him to realise his mistake and asked him to file a suitable affidavit so as to enable this Court to drop the proceedings against him. Then, the matter was adjourned by giving sufficient time. But to our shock, the affidavit has been filed by the petitioner giving statement justifying his act and stated that it would not amount to contempt and even if it is a contempt, that must be heard only by the First Bench and not by this Bench. 60. Though in the first paragraph, Karuppan would state that "at the outset I profoundly apologize for my conduct having offended the sentiments of the Hon'ble Court though prima facie", he went on saying that "I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. The idea of publishing the same is not with any ulterior motive except for making known to the multitude of curious advocates." In the continuing portions covering about 10 paragraphs, he went on justifying his act in making the others to know about the proceedings held in the court. Thus, it is clear that he has not realised the blunder mistake committed by him. On the other hand, he would venture to justify the same. 61. Yet another shocking feature is that when the petitioner argued the matter before the Second Bench consisting of Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, he criticised the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 and the above Division Bench condemned the said act of Karuppan, the petitioner, and consequently, while dismissing the miscellaneous applications, imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- by the order dated 4.2.2003. To set aside the said order, another application has been filed by him before the same Division Bench and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2003 holding that the petitioner has filed the said petition which has vexatious nature. Challenging the said order, Mr.Karuppan filed S.L.P.Nos.4501-4502 of 2003 before the Apex Court and the same were dismissed on 6.3.2003. To set aside the said order, another application has been filed by him before the same Division Bench and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2003 holding that the petitioner has filed the said petition which has vexatious nature. Challenging the said order, Mr.Karuppan filed S.L.P.Nos.4501-4502 of 2003 before the Apex Court and the same were dismissed on 6.3.2003. In that order, the following direction was given: "We, therefore, see no ground to entertain the S.L.P. However, we would like to observe that the High Court may dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously along with the connected matter, if any." By this, the order of the Second Bench has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. ... 72. Let us quote some of the recitals contained in the said Flaws criticising both our Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice V.S. Sirpurkar who headed the Second Bench: "A writ appeal was filed opposing this (Justice Jagadeesan's order). The Chief Justice took it up for hearing. Karuppan sought that two petitions seeking to allow him to participate in the competition that is held before the Indian team is selected and to permit him to practice at the Chennai Rifle Club be taken up for hearing. The Chief Justice could have taken it up for hearing and granted an interim order. But it is not clear why he posted them before Justice Sirpurkar. ..... However, he filed the counter only on behalf of Sivanthi Adithan. In that counter too all the charges made by Karuppan were not denied. The usual practice is that in cases relating to competitions and examination the verdict would be delivered immediately. That is how judgments were given since 1994. However, Justice Sirpurkar casually heard the case and without passing any orders posted it for further hearing the next day. The next day the part heard case was listed last on his call list. Karuppan who waited till afternoon lost his patience and wrote a letter to the Chief Justice asking him to transfer the case to some other judge, as he did not have confidence in Justice Sirpurkar. .... But the Chief Justice sent the note to Justice Sirpurkar asking him to expedite the hearing in the petitions. Since the petitioner was an advocate and doubted the judgmental capacity of the judge, though the suspicion could be baseless, Justice Sirpurkar should have transferred the case to some other judge. .... .... But the Chief Justice sent the note to Justice Sirpurkar asking him to expedite the hearing in the petitions. Since the petitioner was an advocate and doubted the judgmental capacity of the judge, though the suspicion could be baseless, Justice Sirpurkar should have transferred the case to some other judge. .... However, it was proved that Justice Sirpurkar was biased while attempting to cover up the matter relating to the selection of Sivanthi Adithan's son. .... After thinking the whole night, Karuppan came to a decision. He remembered that Justice Sirpurkar had not delivered the verdict in a cheating case against Sivanthi Adithan in 1999 though it was proved that the latter was guilty. The same judge was now saying that the advocate appearing for Sivanthi Adithan need not argue about Sivanthi Adithan's son. Therefore, he (Karuppan) should not argue his case further before Justice Sirpurkar. ... Justice Sirpurkar's present judgment was contraditory to his verdict in 1998. Since he had not accepted the verdicts delivered by three benches, he should refer it to a larger bench." 73. So, these portions would indicate that Mr.Karuppan in the news letter called FLAWS has criticised the act of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice in having declined to grant interim order in the two petitions in the appeal filed against Justice Jagadeesan's order and the conduct of the Chief Justice in posting them before Justice Sirpurkar. Further, almost in all the paragraphs in the news letter, he criticised Justice Sirpurkar stating that he is biased and he doubted the judgmental capacity of Justice Sirpurkar and also he did not have any confidence in Justice Sirpurkar. He would also go to the extent of saying that Justice Sirpurkar in the year 1999 had given a verdict in a cheating case in favour of Sivanthi Adithan, though it was proved that the latter was guilty. ... 79. When this Court issued suo motu proceedings against the petitioner with reference to the publication of FLAWS, as indicated earlier, this Court advised Mr.Karuppan to realise his mistake and file an affidavit suitably, so that this Court would consider the above act of the petitioner with a lenient view. 80. Despite the indication given by this Court, Mr.Karuppan filed the affidavit dated 7.11.2003 justifying his action of distributing the pamphlet criticising the Judges and the lawyers. 80. Despite the indication given by this Court, Mr.Karuppan filed the affidavit dated 7.11.2003 justifying his action of distributing the pamphlet criticising the Judges and the lawyers. The relevant statements in the affidavit are as follows: "I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. The idea of publishing the same is not with any ulterior motive except for making known to the multitude of curious advocates. .... lst respondent and his counsel have overlooked that the alleged act of contempt is not on the face of this Court. So they can only file a contempt application before the first Court, for the Chief Justice's Court alone is vested with the portfolio of exercising contempt jurisdiction. ...If the respondent is aggrieved personally and if his counsel is also aggrieved, the only course is that each one of them should have filed separate contempt applications for action against me the applicant. .... I had been publishing a news letter called Flaws for the past one and half decades are so. It invariably brought out the happenings in the Court. It's sole objective was to enlighten the advocates fraternity about the happenings in and around the Campus. ...... Above all the issue involved is matter of public interest and pertains to a pro-bono action. .... Besides many who followed the case were of the opinion that the matter should be reported to the Chief Justice of India and his companion Judges as well to the President of India. They felt that the matter should be published on their behalf. I accordingly expressed the entire happenings from the day one to till the last orders of the Chief Justice including the happenings at the Supreme Court. ..... Faithful honest expositions of the happenings in the Court of law are public proceedings can be published and as well pleaded before any superior court is the settled legal position which is every body's knowledge. That cannot give rise to a criminal contempt. ..... lst respondent has stated that I have made scandalous allegations against the Chief Justice and his companion Judge. I am afraid that there is nothing scandalous to be found. .... Needless to state that this is not the forum even if the allegations were true and that the same should have been moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice." 81. ..... lst respondent has stated that I have made scandalous allegations against the Chief Justice and his companion Judge. I am afraid that there is nothing scandalous to be found. .... Needless to state that this is not the forum even if the allegations were true and that the same should have been moved before the Hon'ble Chief Justice." 81. Even when the matter was taken up in the chamber during the in-camera enquiry, Mr.Karuppan, the party-in-person would reiterate that the statement made in the publication is not contumacious and the idea of publishing the same is only for making known to the multitude of advocates and the bona fide reporting of the experiences of the advocate inside the court to the members of the fraternity, that too as a leader of the Bar, can never be termed as a contempt and even assuming that the same is contempt, that could be questioned only by a separate proceeding and that too before the First Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and not before this Court. 82. This contention apparently, in our view, is untenable in view of the suo motu power which has been conferred to this Court under Section 15 of the Act. Further, all these matters were originally posted before the First Bench and on the basis of the administrative orders, it was posted before the Second Bench and later, on the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter has been posted before this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that this Court is within its power to initiate suo motu proceedings against the party-in-person who has admittedly printed and published by serving the copies of the news letter to the advocates including the counsel for the respondent, that to, near the court hall of the Chief Justice. ... 85. The present case would fall under the first category. There is no dispute that the publication and distribution of news letter was made by Mr.Karuppan in the High Court Campus by serving the same to the advocates. As we have indicated that the contents of the publication would scandalise both the First Bench and the Second Bench. The petitioner cannot escape by saying that it is only a bona fide report. ... 90. The defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the court into contempt. As we have indicated that the contents of the publication would scandalise both the First Bench and the Second Bench. The petitioner cannot escape by saying that it is only a bona fide report. ... 90. The defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the court into contempt. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine the public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. 91. In order that the Judges may fearlessly and independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions, it is necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the sphere of their activity. 92. A fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if made in good faith and public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest, the courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the courts in the name of fair criticism. If the same is not checked, it would destroy the institution itself. Litigant losing in the court is the first to impute motives to the Judges. 93. Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology. ... 103. Even a cursory reading of the remarks in the FLAWS made against our Hon'ble Chief Justice as well as against Justice Sirpurkar of this Chartered High Court unambiguously shows that the outrageous allegations and potentially prejudicial utterances made by Mr.Karuppan have struck a blow on the judiciary and also seriously sullied the great image and high esteem which the office of the Judge of the High Court carries with it and thus impeded the course of justice. In our opinion, the incident in question is a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of Law. ... 105. In our opinion, the incident in question is a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of Law. ... 105. When a member of the Bar is required to be punished for use of contemptuous language against the judiciary, it is highly painful and it pleases none but painful duties have to be perforemd to uphold the honour and dignity of an individual Judge and his office and the prestige of the institution. ... 110. The Judge is one, who having equitably examined any injustice, suitably punishes it, so that it may not be again committed. The Court may be tough in posture , but it has to be merciful in operations. So, let the Courts brandish the rods smartly but lay it on soft. This is a way of imposing punishment as popularly called as "Mercy Seasoning Justice" as quoted by Shakesphere. 111. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that imposing the sentence of small fine would be fine, as it would be taken as a token for the expression of our displeasure over the conduct of Mr.Karuppan, the contemner. Therefore, while we find him guilty for the offence under Section 2(c) of the Act, we impose a simple fine of Re.1/- (One Rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. ... " 17. From the above backdrop of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the matter posted before us, viz. the affidavit bearing W.P.S.R.No.151726 of 2003 to recall the order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, need not necessarily be heard by the same Bench consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J, and S.Ashok Kumar, J, unless it is otherwise directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 18. Even on merits, the Division Bench imposed a punishment on Mr.R.Kaaruppan, viz. " 117. (i) .... (ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr.Karupan is found guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Re.1/- (One rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. Even on merits, the Division Bench imposed a punishment on Mr.R.Kaaruppan, viz. " 117. (i) .... (ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr.Karupan is found guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Re.1/- (One rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. " not for the contempt alleged to have been made against the said Division Bench, but with respect to the conduct of the parties making derogatory statements against the I and II Bench and for publishing the same in the magazine called FLAWS as referred to in detail. 19. It is trite law that when contemptuous, disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the presiding judicial officer with impunity, we are of the considered opinion that the same amounts to impute the motives against the Court in general and therefore, it is high time that such attempt should be nipped in the bud, so that the administration of justice could be dispensed with, without any fear. 20. Further more, once this Bench is constituted to deal on the maintainability of the matter in question, it may not be proper for us to adjourn the matter sine die, at the request of the petitioner, as the precious time of the Court cannot be wasted by accommodating such request. We expect the petitioner, being a member of the Bar, to realise his duty and burden to share such a judicious responsibility to the society. 21. In any event, we are also of the considered opinion that the motive attributed against the Presiding Officer (M.Karpagavinayagam, J) in the affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, is not supported with any formal application, and even otherwise the same is liable to be rejected as an after thought and belated one. 22. In the absence of any submission by Mr.R.Kaaruppan, we have no other option except to accept the grounds of objection raised by the Registry and hold the same as sustainable in law. For all these reasons, the prayer sought for in the affidavit bearing W.P.S.R.No.151726 of 2003 to recall the the order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, is rejected.