2011 (2) KCCR 91 (DB) (SN), 2011 (3) KantLJ 572 (DB), 2011 ILR(Kar) 2347, 2011 CrLJ 3239 High Court of Karnataka THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ Phaniraj Kashyap, Bangalore Versus S.R. Ramakrishna & Others CCC (CRL) No. 8 of 2009 C of W CCC (CRL) Nos.9 of 2009, 7 of 2010 & 8 of 2010 Decided On : 11-11-2010 Advocates Appeared: For the Petitioner: K. Suman Advocate. For the Respondents: S.S. Nagananad, S/C For S. Sriranga, M/S. Just Law Advocates. Judgment :- 1. The subject matter of all these four complaints is one and the same. The complainant in CCC (Crl.) Nos. 8/2009 & 9/2009 is Sri Phaniraj Kashyap and the complainant in CCC (CRL.) Nos.7/2010 & 8/2010 is Smt. K Vijaya, mother of Phaniraj Kashyap. They have preferred these complaints after obtaining requisite permission from the Advocate General of Karnataka, and initiated proceedings alleging criminal attempt of this Court and to punish the accused persons in accordance with law. 2. The accused persons are the editor, publisher and reporter of Deccan Herald and MID-DAY Newspaper published from Bangalore. 3. The facts leading to these complaints are clearly set out in the petition CCC (Crl.) No.7/2010. It is averred that Sri Phaniraj Kashyap the complainant in CCC (Crl.) No.8 of 2009 was a student of 5 years LLB course in M.S. Ramaiah College, Bangalore. He is a bright student. He has been prosecuting his studies in right earnest with the fond hope of turning out to be a good advocate with high professional competency. In all the previous 8 semesters of the 5 year LLB Course, he has secured average of 60.2% marks. In the 9th semester examination, he got 61 marks in the paper/subject `Criminal Procedure Code’; 47 marks in the paper/ subject `Environmental Law’ and 55 marks in ‘Administrative Law’. However, to his shock and dismay, he secured only 18 marks in the subject/ paper ‘Code of Civil Procedure’ which he had done exceedingly well and was expecting high first class. Immediately after the result, he applied for revaluation and obtained the certified copy of the answer sheets of his CPC paper on 19-2-2009. The answer sheets disclosed how he has become a victim of irresponsible and reckless valuation of assessment of answers and allotment of marks. Dr. Immediately after the result, he applied for revaluation and obtained the certified copy of the answer sheets of his CPC paper on 19-2-2009. The answer sheets disclosed how he has become a victim of irresponsible and reckless valuation of assessment of answers and allotment of marks. Dr. T Subramanyan, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Law, Bangalore University has certified that the paper is fit for revaluation. Even before announcement of the results, he had secured admission to LLM Course in Texas School, USA in the first week of March, 2009. The examination for the law course of other semesters have commenced from 4-5-2009. The 10th semester examination of the 5 year LLB Course commenced on 15th May, 2009. The results of the 10th semester were expected in the end of June, 2009. At the latest, he was required to attend Visa interview for being admitted to LLM Course in Texas Law School, USA with all the mark sheets and other testimonials by the end of June, 2009. He had secured Visa and he joined the course in Texas Law School. He painfully waited for 2 ½ months for the result of the valuation of his CPC paper. It was not done even after reasonable long wait. He apprehended the possibility of revaluation being neglected by the University and consequently facing a risk of loosing admission to the LLM Course in Texas Law School. He therefore submitted his predicament to the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. 4. It is his specific case that Vice Chancellor of the Bangalore University took sympathy on his plight at that point of time and having realised that his career was at stake, inasmuch as, if the revaluation of the CPC paper was not done immediately, he would not merely loose one precious year in his career but also the chance of being admitted to the LLM course in Texas Law School, USA, the admission to which course he had already secured a seat in the first week of March, 2009 itself. The Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University is empowered under Section 15 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 to take such action as he deemed necessary, in the case of emergency, which in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor, required immediate action. The Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University is empowered under Section 15 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 to take such action as he deemed necessary, in the case of emergency, which in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor, required immediate action. He was fortunate that the Vice Chancellor appreciated the predicament faced by him and exercised his discretionary power under Section 15(1), (3) and (5) of the Act and ordered immediate revaluation of his CPC paper. Thereafter, he was declared having passed CPC paper with 65 marks after revaluation. Himself, his mother or his father were not aware of the persons who actually revalued the paper. However, all of them were grateful to the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University and the persons who revalued his paper as they had done justice by awarding him right marks in the CPC paper that too by revaluating the same immediately. 5. While this is the factual and legal position, to the utter shock and dismay, the complainant’s family noticed a news report published in the front page of the daily English newspaper ‘Deccan Herald’ dated 9-5-2009 published in Bangalore wherein gross defamatory allegations have been made against him and also against his father, husband of the complainant –Smt. Vijaya under the caption ‘Bangalore Varsity dishes out special favour to VIP son’. A copy of the said news report is at Annexure-B. The complainant –Smt K Vijaya’s husband Mr. Justice K Sreedhar Rao is a sitting Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The news report/publication as appeared in the daily newspaper has been coined in such a manner that it will not merely an attack personally on the social standing, reputation and respect of complainant’s son, but is a direct attack also on his father. The reference to ‘a judge of High Court’ in the said news report/ publication was not just a casual reference, but evidently a well intended one aimed at scandalising and lowering the dignity and majesty of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Evidently, the persons responsible for the publication of such unjust defamatory allegations are also guilty of ‘criminal contempt’ under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The complainant/son was shocked and pained to read the calumnious news report in the ‘Deccan Herald’ dated 9-5-2009. The news report was highly defamatory with a potential of unduly prejudicing the minds of the readers. Evidently, the persons responsible for the publication of such unjust defamatory allegations are also guilty of ‘criminal contempt’ under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The complainant/son was shocked and pained to read the calumnious news report in the ‘Deccan Herald’ dated 9-5-2009. The news report was highly defamatory with a potential of unduly prejudicing the minds of the readers. The allegations made therein against the son and his father are false. The status and reputation of the son/complainant has been lowered and brought down amongst his friends in the social circle and even in the college. His friends started questioning his credentials as if he was able to get 65 marks in CPC paper only on account of the influence wielded by his father. The fact remains that his father has nothing to do with this issue and he is an upright Judge of the Hon’ble High Court who does not venture into such acts as is sought to be imputed to him in the news report by Deccan Herald by making such insinuating innuendoes therein, which are blatantly false. Some of the sentences in the news report would clearly disclose that these false accusations have been made with the dishonest intention of defaming the son/complainant and knowing fully well that such a statement would not merely bring down the name, reputation, respect and standing of his father in the society and further, that it would also have a far reaching effect in the minds of the readers as to the integrity and honesty of sitting Judges of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. In fact, the whole institution i.e., High Court of Karnataka has been denigrated in the process. The reporter, printer and publisher and the editor of that news paper are conscious of the meaning and the imputation of the statements as published in the news report and its far reaching effect and that such publication will certainly harm the reputation of the complainant/son as well as his father and that it also scandalises and lowers the majesty, dignity and authority of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. 7. The persons concerned had the moral and legal duty to enquire with the complainant/ son before the publication to know the true and complete facts regarding the episodes of revaluation. 7. The persons concerned had the moral and legal duty to enquire with the complainant/ son before the publication to know the true and complete facts regarding the episodes of revaluation. The report is unfair and the ‘Deccan Herald’ has damaged his reputation irreversibly by its unilateral act of publishing such defamatory article. The son/complainant therefore went to the office of the Deccan Herald and met Sri Subramanya, Associate Editor of Deccan Herald on 9-5-2009 at about 5.00 p.m. and gave a letter dated 9-5-2009 as addressed to the Editor of the Deccan Herald stating in brief the fact as detailed above and also gave a draft rejoinder to be published by the accused in their News paper ‘Deccan Herald’ next day. The son/complainant along with his letter dated 9-5-2009 also furnished the certified copy of the answer sheet for scrutiny and verification by any of the persons of their choice to find out the integrity of the revaluation. In his letter dated 9-5-2009 he requested the Deccan Herald to publish the full text of his rejoinder to refurbish his sullied image in the front page of the news paper with a bold head note. In his letter dated 9-5-2009 in specific unequivocal terms, he had emphasised that the false, unfair and unjust report published by the accused has grossly defamed him and damaged his reputation irreversibly. A copy of the letter is also enclosed as per Annexure-C & D respectively. The Deccan Herald did not bother to accede to his request so as to resurrect his drowning status. However, on 12-5-2009 in the daily English Newspaper at page 3, they have dealt with the episode under the caption ‘It is a matter of coincidence BU authorities’. ‘Answer script of High Court Judge’s son was revalued while those of 3,000 other students remained pending”. A copy of the news report was enclosed at Annexure-E. In the first part of the news report printed in Bold reads as follows: “BANGALORE: The Bangalore University Authorities on Monday explained that the double quick revaluation of the 9th semester answer paper of LLB Sri Phaniraj Kashyap was just a matter of coincidence. The said report deliberately skipped and suppressed some of the material facts stated in the rejoinder which would justify the circumstances leading to the revaluation. The intention of Deccan Herald is evidently aimed at further defaming the son/complainant and his father. 8. The said report deliberately skipped and suppressed some of the material facts stated in the rejoinder which would justify the circumstances leading to the revaluation. The intention of Deccan Herald is evidently aimed at further defaming the son/complainant and his father. 8. The second report dated 12-5-2009 in Deccan Herald is insidious and taints the character of the son of the complainant and also the integrity of his father. The readers believe that undue favour is shown bypassing the procedure of revaluation because of VIP status. If the true facts relating to predicament of the complainant’s son represented to Vice Chancellor, is considered vis-à-vis the powers of Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University under Section 15(5), it becomes clear to the readers that the accusation of illegal favour in the report dated 9-5-2009 in Deccan Herald are totally baseless and concocted. While this is the factual and legal position, the son of the complainant was informed by his friend by name Sri Sanath Kumar Kedilaya who is a practicing advocate in Bangalore that while he was browsing the internet, he came across a news report/article published by the accused persons’. This news report was reported by the third accused whereunder allegations have been made by the accused persons which are not merely defamatory, but a direct attack on the sitting Judge of the High Court of Karnataka which has also the effect of scandalising the judiciary and bringing down the majesty, authority and honesty of the sitting Judges of the High Court of Karnataka. What mischief was played by Deccan Herald has been magnified by the accused persons deliberately with the dishonest intention of bringing down the name, status and reputation of the son/complainant and his father and in the process denigrating the whole judicial system. The son/complainant thereafter made enquiries and to his further shock and dismay, found that in fact, the very news report as was displayed on the internet by the accused persons in their web sites, was also published by the accused persons in their newspaper Bangalore Edition ‘Mid Day’ on 14-5-2009. A specific reference was made therein not merely to the son/complainant but also his father by naming him. A specific reference was made therein not merely to the son/complainant but also his father by naming him. The gross defamatory portion contained in their news report as reported by the third accuses reads as under: “Kashyap had appeared for his 10th semester exams last February and had flunked in the ‘Civil Procedure Code Limitation Act’ theory paper. Sources said, the University authorities acted fast to declare him qualified on May 5 because of his dad’s influence. They even suspect that additional sheets were added when the revaluation was done.” The said report is terribly calumnious with insidious innuendo against the High Court Judge. The new report is mischievously potent to tarnish the son/complainant’s image and impliedly his father. The factual contents of the report are false and distorted. Any reader of the report would get an impression that the High Court Judge exercised undue influence over the Bangalore University to do undue favour of allotment of marks in the revaluation and also that the required procedures were bypassed to show preference in revaluation. None of the accused persons consulted the son/complainant about the true state of facts before publication. The article blatantly amounts to contempt of court, besides the offence of defamation. 9. The accused persons are well aware that such accusations being made directly by all the accused against a sitting Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka would make the readers to ponder whether a sitting Judge would resort to any such action of trying to influence the authorities by misusing his position. Such direct accusatory statements made by all the accused persons in their news report have caused confusion in the minds of the readers to such an extent that the readers would now question the honesty and integrity of a sitting Judge of High Court of Karnataka. The news report published in the newspaper has far reaching effect. The accused are aware that such false allegation/imputations as are made in the news report will in the estimation of others lower the moral and intellectual character of the son/complainant as well as his standing and status in the society and that it will further bring disgrace to him as well as to his father. The accused are aware that such false allegation/imputations as are made in the news report will in the estimation of others lower the moral and intellectual character of the son/complainant as well as his standing and status in the society and that it will further bring disgrace to him as well as to his father. The accused are also aware that the imputations made in the news report concerning the son of the complainant or his father are not at all true and it is not for public good. Evidently, there is no good faith in their conduct and it is needless to state that the accused have not merely defamed the son/complainant but also his father who is a sitting Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. They have sought permission from the Advocate General and after obtaining permission initiated contempt proceedings against the accused. 10. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance. They have filed statement of objections. They do not dispute the publication of the report. What they contend is, the Article only points out that the complainant/son’s paper was revalued out of turn and that there was pressure from the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University for undertaking revaluation. Incidentally, it is also reported that the paper valued out of turn was that of the complainant/son who indeed is the son of a sitting Judge of this Hon’ble Court. The very cause title to the present complaint and the contents of the complaint also point out that these statements are true. The article also points out the fact that in the process of revaluation, the University has flouted certain norms and that illegalities have crept into the process of revaluation. It is submitted that there has been no attempt on the part of the accused herein to scandalise or lower the authority of this Hon’ble Court in any manner. On the contrary, the article highlights the actions of Bangalore University. No comment is made about this Hon’ble Court or about any Hon’ble Judge or the husband of the complainant. It is therefore submitted that the article is not contumacious as falsely alleged in the complaint. No part of this article is contumacious as there is no statement which either scandalises or lowers the dignity of this Hon’ble Court. No comment is made about this Hon’ble Court or about any Hon’ble Judge or the husband of the complainant. It is therefore submitted that the article is not contumacious as falsely alleged in the complaint. No part of this article is contumacious as there is no statement which either scandalises or lowers the dignity of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the question of the accused herein having committed criminal contempt does not arise and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The article which is the subject matter of present proceedings do not deal with the conduct of any Hon’ble Judge of this Court either in court proceedings or outside the court. Therefore, the question of the article being contumacious and the accused herein being guilty of criminal contempt does not arise. The accused are employees and officers who are working as journalists in reputed news daily. The news daily is known for accurate reporting of news items and impartial reporting of events. Being a responsible news daily, it has the onerous task of bringing into focus and to the forefront issues which are of public importance and also reveal the good and bad conduct of various authorities, statutory bodies etc in their day to day functioning. When it is found that a statutory body like the Bangalore University has flouted the procedures in the process of revaluation, a news daily is duty bound to reveal the same to the general public. The news daily has discharged this duty by publishing details of the same in its article dated 14-5-2009. The article speaks of the conduct of the University and not of any sitting Judge of this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the alleged report is totally based on the illegalities made by the Bangalore University and it does not point out or defame any sitting Judge of this Court. However, if this Hon’ble Court comes to a conclusion that the report is defamatory, it is a settled law and the Apex Court has several times held that what amounts to criminal contempt should be substantial and mala fide interference with fearless judicial action and criticism affecting the judges in their representative capacity and not those affecting them in their personal capacity. It is time and again held that personal attacks against judges should be susceptible to punishment in the same way as attacks upon any other individual. It is time and again held that personal attacks against judges should be susceptible to punishment in the same way as attacks upon any other individual. It clearly states that the redress in respect of attacks in personal capacity of any Judge has necessarily to be left to the general law of defamation and that it does not amount to criminal contempt. 11. They further state that press is an important arm of a democratic polity. To uphold the rule of law, all institutions ought to be allowed to function freely. Such actions against the press would have a ‘chilling effect’ which would be counter productive to the healthy working of democracy, which is a basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it is submitted that continuance of these proceedings will seriously hamper the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Law of Contempt is not intended to stifle public discourse and debate about institutions. 12. Without prejudice to the alleged allegations, they further contend that if this Court is of the view that publications are in anyway contemptuous in nature, there is no intention on behalf of the accused to either scandalise or lower the authority of this Hon’ble Court in any manner. The intention of the accused was bonafide and in public interest and therefore, they may be pardoned for the same. 13. They have also filed an additional statement of objections along with the documents after obtaining them under Right to Information Act. Relying on the contents of the documents, they submit that in the light of these materials, articles in question do not scandalise the judiciary or the Hon’ble Judge. It merely conveys the maladies in public institutions namely Bangalore University and throws light on its unsatisfactory functioning. The articles do not denigrate the Hon’ble Court or any Hon’ble Judge. Freedom of Press is the hall mark of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. A free and independent press is a sine quo non for the effective functioning of democracy. It is the bounden duty of the press to bring to fore the erring institutions in the country. In discharge of this onerous responsibility the article in question is published. It is submitted that it is never intended to denigrate judiciary nor have the articles resulted in such scandalising or denigration. It is the bounden duty of the press to bring to fore the erring institutions in the country. In discharge of this onerous responsibility the article in question is published. It is submitted that it is never intended to denigrate judiciary nor have the articles resulted in such scandalising or denigration. The continuation of these proceedings in itself seriously affects the independence of press and has a chilling effect, thereby making the press ineffective. They submit that they hold this Hon’ble Court in highest esteem and consider judiciary as the strongest pillar of democracy. They have never done or will not do anything to weaken this important pillar of the Constitution. If inadvertently an impression has been gathered that the articles denigrate the judiciary or any Hon’ble Judge, the same is deeply regretted as it is never the intention of the publication. 14. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri Suman contended that a reading of the articles published in the newspaper make it abundantly clear that the complainant’s answer paper was revalued only because of the influence wielded by his father. Though in the publications of Deccan Herald, the name of the Judge is not mentioned in the publication, in MID DAY newspaper, his name is categorically mentioned and there is repeated reference of the phrase `son of the High Court Judge’ and in the publication of MID DAY paper, there is express words ‘that because of the influence of the Judge, revaluation was done’. Further, he submitted that it also gives an impression that even in the process of revaluation, things are not fair. It gives an impression that additional sheets are added, revaluation is done by a person who is not competent to do revaluation and it was done forthwith leading to an inference that it is because of the influence wielded by the Judge, it happened. Therefore, when it was brought to the notice of the accused how things have happened with relevant particulars, without taking reseeding steps, they have again published the report mischievously pointing out the finger at the Judge. Therefore, he submits that it is a clear case of scandalous attack on the Judge and the institution of which he is a part and therefore, it squarely falls within the definition of criminal contempt and a case for proceeding against the accused has been made out. 15. Therefore, he submits that it is a clear case of scandalous attack on the Judge and the institution of which he is a part and therefore, it squarely falls within the definition of criminal contempt and a case for proceeding against the accused has been made out. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused submitted that the whole object of the article is to point out to the general public maladies in autonomous authority like Bangalore University and its functioning. It is in this context, when it came to their notice that 3000 applications were pending for revaluation, it was curious to note that one application was taken out of turn and revalued. The object is not to denigrate the Judge or this institution. The object was to make these autonomous institutions responsible to the public needs and to fight against irregularities and illegalities in the said institutions. In the entire report published, there is no intention of scandalising the Judge or the institution and in view of the settled legal position, assuming that those words amount to defamation, the remedy is to sue them in civil or criminal Court for defamation and not to initiate contempt proceedings. In fact, the Advocate Generals have not applied their mind properly and have given permission. In fact, one of the Advocate Generals has not given his opinion and he wants a public debate and therefore he is giving permission. Therefore, he submits that no case for initiating criminal contempt proceedings is made out, as such, contempt proceedings be dropped. 16. The complainant, upon consideration of the reply filed by the accused and the documents relied on in the said statement of objections and after hearing the parties, it is clear that the case of the complainants is that the said publications in the news dailies contain defamatory statements. The said statement has the effect of scandalising the judiciary and bringing down the majesty, authority and honesty of the sitting judges of the High Court of Karnataka and the whole institution i.e., High Court of Karnataka is denigrated in the process. These alleged defamatory statements referred to relates to two persons: (a) Student – Son (b) Father of the student – Sitting High Court Judge 17. These alleged defamatory statements referred to relates to two persons: (a) Student – Son (b) Father of the student – Sitting High Court Judge 17. The defamatory statements made against the son of a sitting High Court Judge cannot be the subject matter of a contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973. Defamatory statements made against a sitting Judge also cannot be the subject matter of proceedings under the Act, unless the said statements have the effect of scandalising the institution of judiciary. That is where the relevancy and importance of the Act comes into force. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act, reads as under: “It is generally felt that the existing law relating to contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizen namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinised by a Special Committee. In pursuance of this, a Committee was set up in 1961 under the Chairmanship of the late Shri H N Sanyal the then Additional Solicitor General. The Committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country and various foreign countries. The recommendations which the Committee made took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the states and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice. The recommendation of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after considering the views expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. The Bill seeks to give effect to the accepted recommendations of the Sanyal Committee.” 18. Therefore, it is clear that the two aspects which need to be kept in mind are: (i) the two important fundamental rights of the citizen namely the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression; and (ii) the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interest of administration of justice. It is in this backdrop it is to be seen whether: (a) There are any allegations in the publication against the judge. It is in this backdrop it is to be seen whether: (a) There are any allegations in the publication against the judge. (b) Whether those allegations are defamatory. (c) Whether the allegations have the effect of affecting the status and dignity of courts and interest of administration of justice. 19. Reliance is placed on three publications. The first one is published in English Daily News Paper, Deccan Herald dated 09.05.2010 with the caption “Bangalore Varsity dishes out special favour to VIP son”, “Hurriedly re-evaluates one paper as 3000 others wait”. The report which is produced as Annexure-B to the petition reads as under: “BANGALORE: It helps to bend the rules if you are a High Court judge’s son. Even as over 3,000 LLB students await their revaluation results, Bangalore University has hurriedly evaluated only the answer script of a VIP student and despatched his revised marks card to his college, under dubious circumstances. Phaniraj Kashyap, a 10th semester LLB student from MS Ramaiah College of Law, failed a paper in the 9th semester and applied for revaluation in February this year, Kashyap, the son of a High Court Judge, secured 18 out of 100 in the 9th semester Civil Procedure Code paper. After evaluation, the marks went up to 65, While his paper was re-evaluated as late as May 5 this year, there are thousand others, with little or no “connections”, who continue to remain in the dark about their final performance. Several of these students intend to pursue LLM and master’s programmes abroad. In his defence, Bangalore University Vice-Chancellor Dr. Prabhu Dev said he was unaware of the matter. “I was also unaware of the pending revaluation results but the process for revaluation has started.” The registrar for evaluation, S K Laxman, too claimed that the matter had not come to his attention and refused to comment on the delay in the re-evaluation process. Under pressure Reliable sources told Deccan Herald that Kashyap’s paper was personally evaluated by the Principal of University Law College under pressure from higher authorities, particularly the vice-chancellor. Incidentally, the principal, an expert in International Law, evaluated the “Civil Procedure Code Limitation Act” theory paper. Sources said the paper was evaluated in the presence of a Special Officer who insisted that it be evaluated on the spot by the former. Incidentally, the principal, an expert in International Law, evaluated the “Civil Procedure Code Limitation Act” theory paper. Sources said the paper was evaluated in the presence of a Special Officer who insisted that it be evaluated on the spot by the former. The principal was reportedly unhappy with the pressure being applied on him but nevertheless went ahead with the onerous task. After the first evaluation, Kashyap was awarded 65. According to university rules, if the difference between the original and reevaluation marks exceeded 15, the paper should be subjected to a re-evaluation by another examiner. This subsequent evaluation known as board evaluation, was conducted by an expert in labour law at the University Law College. This time Kashyap secured 63 and hence the higher of the two totals were taken. This instance of “blatant favouritism” comes in the wake of several dissenting voices among law college principals and disagreements reportedly between the registrar of evaluation and the vice-chancellor over the new examination regulations and also the failure to constitute a committee for revaluation.” 20. The second publication is dated 12.05.2009 published in English Daily News Paper, Deccan Herald with a caption. “It’s a matter of coincidence: BU authorities.” “Answer script of HC Judge’s son was revalued, while those of 3,000 other students remain pending.” The report at Annexure-E reads as under: “BANGALORE: The Bangalore University authorities on Monday explained that the double quick re-evaluation of the 9th semester answer paper of LLB student Phaniraj Kashyap, was just a mater of “coincidence”. On May 9, Deccan Herald had reported that the Bangalore University authorities had hastily taken up and completed the re-evaluation of Phaniraj kashyap’s Civil Procedure Code paper, while the re-evaluation applications of over 3,000 other students were still pending. The said report nowhere intended to suggest that the University authorities had done a favour to Phaniraj by awarding him 65 marks in the re-evaluation, though the might have secured just 18 marks in the original evaluation. The favour was just that Phaniraj’s paper was singled out for re-evaluation, while the other applications seeking re-evaluation were still gathering dust. The said report nowhere intended to suggest that the University authorities had done a favour to Phaniraj by awarding him 65 marks in the re-evaluation, though the might have secured just 18 marks in the original evaluation. The favour was just that Phaniraj’s paper was singled out for re-evaluation, while the other applications seeking re-evaluation were still gathering dust. Poor evaluation Indeed, the answer sheet as evaluated by the first evaluator, a certified copy of which was made available to Deccan Herald, makes it abundantly clear that Phaniraj was a victim of extremely poor evaluation carried out by the original evaluator, who it would seem, had failed to apply himself to the requirements of proper evaluation. While the evaluator had awarded 18 marks, a simple totaling of the marks he had entered in the proper format provided in the front page of the answer script adds up to 20 marks. The error is not just with the totaling of the front page entries. The error is compounded by the fact that even the entries made in the front page are inaccurate. Because, the marks awarded to different answers in the answer script actually adds up to 22 marks. So, in the tabulation process, the evaluator deprives the student 4 marks. Of course, this is not to talk about the very evaluation of the answer paper. The student, who had successively maintained first class scores in the previous eight semesters, got just 18 marks? No, no way. This was established, of course, by the two re-evaluations-one giving him 65 marks and the other awarding 63. Others still waiting The point, however, Deccan Herald highlighted in the May 9 report was that there were still over 3,000 students who, it is very probable, might be victims of reckless evaluation. So, why deliver belatedly quick justice to only one student? Others who had applied for re-evaluation have now been waiting for well over two months. Much as the University authorities might maintain that the quick re-evaluation was a mere coincidence, it is no secret that Phaniraj had personally approached the Vice Chancellor with request to expedite the re-evaluation. The question is whether every student, who has applied for re-evaluation, has to knock at the Vice Chancellor’s door before the University moves on the re-evaluation application”. 21. The question is whether every student, who has applied for re-evaluation, has to knock at the Vice Chancellor’s door before the University moves on the re-evaluation application”. 21. The third publication in MID-DAY News Paper dated 14.05.2009 with a caption “BU’s quickie re-evaluation: 3000 papers in one week.” “That’s a record by the university’s standards. How did it happen? Put it down to the recent expose of BU officials singling out the paper of a VIP son for reassessment.” The same is produced as Annexure-F, which reads as under: “BANGALORE. University has miraculously re-evaluated 3,000 answer scripts in less than a week to cover up the irregularity of reassessing the lone paper of a VIP’s son. Of the 3,000 law students who had applied for the re-evaluation, only Phaniraj Kashyap’s answer script was reassessed. LLB student Kashyap, the son of high court justice Sridhar Rao, scored 18 marks in a paper but it went up to 65 after the reevaluation. With the media exposing the irregularity, the varsity tried to cover up its tracks by reevaluating the remaining answer sheets in a hurry. “The re-evaluation works is almost complete and the results will be announced in day or two.” Said Syed Jamal, Special Officer, Bangalore University. Just a week ago, when the scam came to light, a custodian for re-evaluation had not even been appointed. Vice Chancellor Dr. Prabhu Dev had said, “The process has just begun”. And he was unaware of the pending re-evaluation results. However, he now puts it down to internal problems, “because of which we could not appoint the custodian in time”. He insisted that there were no irregularities. Unbelievable feat “It’s a miracle”, said a syndicate member. “The University, known for its lethargy, has finished re-evaluating 3,000 answer sheets. Its unbelievable.” Kashyap had appeared for his 10th semester exams last February and had flunked in the ‘Civil Procedure Code Limitation Act’ theory paper. Sources said, the University authorities acted fast to declare him qualified on May 5 because of his dad’s influence. They even suspect that additional sheets were added when the re-evaluation was done. Subramanyam, principal of University Law College, who had re-evaluated the paper, declined to comment. He said, “I don’t remember how many papers there were from Bangalore University. There were papers from many other universities too”. They even suspect that additional sheets were added when the re-evaluation was done. Subramanyam, principal of University Law College, who had re-evaluated the paper, declined to comment. He said, “I don’t remember how many papers there were from Bangalore University. There were papers from many other universities too”. Sources alleged that Jamal had personally taken the answer script from the examination centre to the college for re-evaluation. “The law says no one is allowed to take answer scripts out of the examination centre but Jamal did it.” A source said. Jamal, however, refused the charge, saying, “It was not me, another special officer took the answer script.” 22. The MID-DAY News Paper has also published a clarification in its publication dated 22.05.2009 at the request of Phaniraj Kashyap, with a caption, “Quickie re-evaluation perfectly legal”, “Law student Phaniraj Kashyap clarifies that university law has a provision for emergency assessments and he took that route to keep his seat in a US College,” a copy of which is produced as Ex.R-1, which reads as under: “PHANIRAJ Kashyap, a law student from Bangalore University whose quickie reevaluation had created a flutter, has clarified that there was no irregularity. “It was an emergency case”, said a statement, “The vice-chancellor acted to help Kashyap in accordance with Section 15 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000”. In jeopardy Kashyap had secured admission for an LLM course in Texas School, USA in the first week of March and had to attend the visa interview with all the testimonials by June. Since the re-evaluation results were taking time, he requested the VC to speed up the process. And the VC obliged, well within the ambit of the law. Track record Kashyap, who had completed the five-year LLB course, had secured first class with an average of 60.2 per cent marks in all the previous eight semesters. But to his shock, he scored only 18 in the Code of Civil Procedure Paper in the 9th semester. He scored 67 in the Criminal Procedure Code paper and passed in all the others. The re-evaluation found that the paper had been irresponsibly evaluated and Kashyap was a victim. He got 65 on re-evaluation. While he appeared for the 9th semester in February, he wrote the 10th and the last semester in May. Meanwhile, he applied for an LLM course in a US college and got the seat. The re-evaluation found that the paper had been irresponsibly evaluated and Kashyap was a victim. He got 65 on re-evaluation. While he appeared for the 9th semester in February, he wrote the 10th and the last semester in May. Meanwhile, he applied for an LLM course in a US college and got the seat. Since the delay in re-evaluation would have affected his admission, he approached the VC and everything was legal thereafter. Kashyap didn’t know who re-evaluated his paper but is thankful to those who did and the VC for the justice, a statement said.” 23. The respondents have applied to the University under the Right to Information Act seeking for particulars regarding revaluation. It is furnished. The said copies are produced before us. Annexure-R1 is the endorsement dated 21.5.2010 which reads as under:- BANGALORE UNIVERSITY No.Ex.VIII/RV/LLB/Exam Nov/Dec. 2008 Examination Branch Jnana Bharati Campus Bangalore – 560 056 Dated: 21-05-2010 ENDORSEMENT Sub: Furnishing information under RTI Act 2005 regarding Examinations conducted in Nov/Dec 2008 for 5 years LLB degree course – Reg. Reg: Letter received from Sri Kaushik N.C. Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Sl. No. Particulars Information Number of students who had applied for revaluation of their answers scripts of 9th semester 5 years BA. LLB course, for the year 2008-09 (examination held in December 2008)? 1421 students have applied for revaluation in 9th semester (5 Yrs LLB Course), examination held in Nov/Dec 2008 2 Number of students who had applied for revaluation of their CPC (Civil Procedure Code) answer scripts of 9th semester 5 years BA.LLB course, for the year 2008-09? 393 students have applied for Civil Procedure Code subject in Dec-2008 examination 3 Number of students from M S Ramaiah Law College who had applied for revaluation of their C.P.C. (Civil procedure Code) answer scripts of 9th semester 5 years BA.LLB course, for the year 2008-09 46 students have applied for Civil Procedure Code subject in Dec-2008 examination from M S Ramaiah Law College, Bangalore for revaluation 4 What was the last date for making an application for revaluation of answer scripts of 9th semester 5 year BA LLB Course, for the year 2008-09 and what was the date on which the revaluation results were announced? 9th semester LLB – Nov/Dec 2008 examination. 9th semester LLB – Nov/Dec 2008 examination. Last date for applying for revaluation Without fine – 25-02-2009 With fine – 28-02-2009 Result announced on 22-05-2009 5 When was the Board constituted for the purpose of Revaluation of 9th semester 5 year BA.LLB course, for the year 2008-09? Provide a copy of the order constituting the Board. There is no board separate constituted for revaluation of 5yr LLB Course for the year 2008-09. The date on which the revaluation process has started for the revaluation of the 9th semester 5 years BA. LLB course, for the year 2008-09: the date on which the revaluation process has ended: the date on which the marks were tabulated and the date on which fresh/new marks cards were dispatched to other colleges? Revaluation work pertaining to LLB examination – Nov/Dec 2008 started from 02-05-2009 and ended 22-05-2009, Marks cards issued to all the colleges on 10-07-2009 and onwards. Date on which Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap (a Law student from M S Ramaiah Law College with University Reg.No.04LVL08045) had applied for the revaluation of his CPC answer script of 9th semester 5 years BA. LLB course, for the year 2008-09? Sri Phaniraj Kashyap the student of M.S. Ramaiah Law College has applied for revaluation with other students of the college within the due date i.e., 22-05-2009. Details of the person who certified Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answers script to be fit for revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answers script for the ‘First time’? Details of the person who revaluated and the date of such revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script for the ‘Second Time’ (as the answers script was revalued on two occasions)? The date on which his marks was tabulated and the date on which his marks card was dispatched to his college? As per rules the candidates who have secured at least 15% of the Maximum marks of each paper/papers in a subject are eligible for applying for revaluation. The Marks cards of IXth Semester for M S Ramaiah College issued on 10-07-2009. In respect of other information the request of the incumbent cannot be considered, as per rules RTI Act 2005 (Bangalore University Examination Manual & also page No.72* of Bangalore University Manual no.17 pertaining to RTIC Act 2005. 17. Such other information as may be prescribed under Section 4(1)(b)(xviii); list of information which are withheld from the public:- 7. In respect of other information the request of the incumbent cannot be considered, as per rules RTI Act 2005 (Bangalore University Examination Manual & also page No.72* of Bangalore University Manual no.17 pertaining to RTIC Act 2005. 17. Such other information as may be prescribed under Section 4(1)(b)(xviii); list of information which are withheld from the public:- 7. Confidential matters pertaining to examination, paper setting, evaluation of scripts and consequent procedures, composition and proceedings of the selection committees will remain confidential and not available in the public domain. Whether Vice Chancellor has exercised his powers under Section 15 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 for early Revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script? If so, provide details. The University at no point of time had meted out any special treatment to Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap in the evaluation of his CPC answer scripts, for the Examination held in the month of November / December 2008. Whether the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor for early revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answers scripts has been placed before the Authority or body concerned for ratification, as per Section 15 of the Karnataka University Act, 2000? If yes, provide details and furnish a copy of such The Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University has not exercised any power under Section 15 of the KSU Act – 2000 in the Revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC Answer Script. Whether the Vice Chancellor had exercised his powers under section 15 of the Act, for early revaluation of answer scripts previously in the past 5 years (i.e., from 2004-05 to 2008-09? If yes, provide details? -----Same as above----- Are there any norms/rules/guidelines or procedure governing the conduct of process of revaluation by the Bangalore University? If yes, furnish a copy of the same. A copy of the revaluation ordinance is ready for issue (9 Pages). You may collect the copy of paying a sum of Rs.18/- in the form of D.D. in favour of The Finance Officer Bangalore University, Bangalore. Whether the revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script has been conducted by the University strictly as per the norms/rules / guidelines or procedure? Yes. As per usual procedure. What are the pre requisites for being an evaluator of the answer scripts? Whether Dr. T.R. Subramanya fulfills all such prerequisites for revaluation of the CPC answer script of Mr. Whether the revaluation of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script has been conducted by the University strictly as per the norms/rules / guidelines or procedure? Yes. As per usual procedure. What are the pre requisites for being an evaluator of the answer scripts? Whether Dr. T.R. Subramanya fulfills all such prerequisites for revaluation of the CPC answer script of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap, especially when he himself has certified the answer script for revaluation? As per examination manual of Bangalore University under Section XII/3 Board of examiners should have 3 years of full time teaching experience and 5 yrs of part time teaching experience. Dr. T.R. Subramanya possess all the pre-requisites to evaluate the CPC answer script of Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap. 15 Number of CPC answer scripts revaluation (excluding Mr. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script) and also total number of answer scripts revaluated by Dr. T.R. Subramanya for the 9th Semester 5 years BA.LLB Course, for the year 2008-09? As per RTI Act – 2005 Bangalore University Examination Manual & also page No.72 of Bangalore University Manual No.17 pertaining to RTI Act 2005, the request of the incumbent cannot be considered as it is confidential. Sd/-21/5/10 Dy. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) To Sri Kaushik N.C., Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd., No.75, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Copy to: 1. Nodal Officer (Right to Information act), B.U.B. 2. …… 24. In this regard it is necessary to have a look at the Revaluation Ordinance of answer scripts, in particular clause (3) which reads as under:- “3. Answer scripts will be referred to a revaluation committee to be constituted by the Vice-Chancellor consisting of the following:- i) Chairman of Board of Examiners (of the examination under reference) ii) The scripts shall be valued by Examiner/s re-recommended by the Chairman, Board of Examiners. The Chairman shall ensure that he will draw external examiners also in such manner that they would not have valued that subject in the main examination.” The amendment to the said Ordinance reads as under:- 1. The whole process of revaluation should be completed within 55 days (7 weeks) after the announcement of results: a) 25 days for initial preparations, coding of scripts etc., b) 20 days for revaluation c) 10 days for announcement of results and issue of marks cards of revaluation. Revaluation should be done centrally as in the case of main valuation. The whole process of revaluation should be completed within 55 days (7 weeks) after the announcement of results: a) 25 days for initial preparations, coding of scripts etc., b) 20 days for revaluation c) 10 days for announcement of results and issue of marks cards of revaluation. Revaluation should be done centrally as in the case of main valuation. University will prepare a consolidated list and send it to the revaluation co-ordinator/ Custodina. The co-ordinator/ custodian of main examination as authorised by the Registrar (Evaluation) will pick out the answer scripts and give them to the co-ordinator appointed for revaluation. While preparing, the facing sheet of all the answer scripts is to be marked to reduce the time of preparation of books for revaluation. During revaluation, the valuer shall sign all the sub-division of the answers they value but record the marks only on the place provided for the purpose. On no account marks or comments should be written inside the answer scripts. The Co-ordinator will make packets of 10 answer scripts each, seal them and then number them randomly. Whenever the total number of scripts are less than 30 scripts they are packed in packets of 5 scripts. All the scripts taken by valuer each time should be valued in one sitting. The marks list shall be prepared in duplicate by the values and one shall directly be handed over to the Registrar (Evaluation) or his authorised nominee by co-ordinator, and another to be retained for tabulation.” 25. The alleged defamatory statements against the Judge in the said publications are only to the following effect. “Bangalore Varsity dishes out special favour to VIP son”. “Hurriedly re-evaluates one paper as 3000 others wait”. “BANGALORE: It helps to bend the rules if you are a High Court judge’s son. “It’s a matter of coincidence: BU authorities”. “Answer script of HC Judge’s son was revalued, while those of 3,000 other students remain pending.” “BU’s quickie re-evaluation: 3000 papers in one week”. “That’s a record by the university’s standards. How did it happen? Put it down to the recent expose of BU officials singling out the paper of a VIP son for reassessment.” “BANGALORE. University has miraculously re-evaluated 3,000 answer scripts in less than a week to cover up the irregularity of reassessing the lone paper of a VIP’s son. “That’s a record by the university’s standards. How did it happen? Put it down to the recent expose of BU officials singling out the paper of a VIP son for reassessment.” “BANGALORE. University has miraculously re-evaluated 3,000 answer scripts in less than a week to cover up the irregularity of reassessing the lone paper of a VIP’s son. Of the 3,000 law students who had applied for the re-evaluation, only Phaniraj Kashyap’s answer script was reassessed. LLB student Kashyap, the son of high court justice Sridhar Rao, scored 18 marks in a paper but it went up to 65 after the reevaluation. Sources said, the University authorities acted fast to declare him qualified on May 5 because of his dad’s influence. 26. The question is whether those statements are: (a) Defamatory (b) has the effect of scandalising the Judge, Judges, Judiciary. 27. In order to find out whether any of the statements in the aforesaid paper publication constitutes a defamatory statement against the Judge or whether it is a calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law of this Court, it is necessary to look into the definition of the Criminal Contempt as defined under the Act and the exposition of law by the Apex Court over the years. 28. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines what criminal contempt means, which reads as under: “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court: or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings: or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; The Parliament amended the Act and substituted Section 13 by Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 by way of substitution which reads as under:- “13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases,- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.- a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or lends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice; b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide”. 29. In the light of the aforesaid definition in the case of S.Mulgaokar, reported in AIR 1978 SC 727 a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, was called upon to consider the publication in Indian Express News Paper dated 13th December, 1977, where a direct attack on the Judges of the Supreme Court was made. In the said judgment, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, has laid down the rules for future guidance of Judges who have to deal with the matters in course of time. They are as under: 27. THE FIRST RULE in this branch of contempt power is a wise economy of use by the Court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The Court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The court is willing to ignore, by a majestic liberalism, trifling and venial offenses – the dogs may bark, the caravan will pass. The court will not be prompted to act as a result of an easy irritability. Much rather, it shall take a noetic look at the conspectus of features and be guided by a constellation of constitutional and other considerations when it chooses to use, or desist from using, its power of contempt. 28. The court will not be prompted to act as a result of an easy irritability. Much rather, it shall take a noetic look at the conspectus of features and be guided by a constellation of constitutional and other considerations when it chooses to use, or desist from using, its power of contempt. 28. THE SECOND PRINCIPLE must be to harmonise the constitutional values of free criticism, the fourth estate included, and the need for a fearless curial process and its presiding functionary, the judge A happy balance has to be struck, the benefit of the doubt being given generously against the judge, slurring over marginal deviations but severely proving the supremacy of the law over pugnacious, vicious, unrepentant and malignant contemners, be they the powerful press, gang-up of vested interests, veteran columnists or Olympian establishmentarians. Not because the judge, the human symbol of a high value, is personally armored by a regal privilege but because ‘be you – the contemner – ever so high, the law – the People’s expression of Justice – is above you. Curial courage overpowers arrogant might even as judicial benignity forgives errant or exaggerated critics. Indeed, to criticise the judge fairly, albeit fiercely, is no crime but a necessary right, twice blessed in a democracy. For, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. Where freedom of expression, fairly exercised, subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it, constitutionally speaking. A free people are the ultimate guarantors of fearless justice. Such is the cornerstone of our Constitution; such is the touchstone of our Contempt power, oriented on the confluence of free speech and fair justice which is the scriptural essence of our Fundamental Law. Speaking of the social philosophy and philosophy of law in an integrated manner as applicable to contempt of court, there is no conceptual polarity but a delicate balance, and judicial ‘sapience’ draws the line. As it happens, our Constitution-makers foresaw the need for balancing all these competing interests. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is an extremely wide definition. But, it cannot be read apart from the conspectus of the constitutional provisions within which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended all past and future statutes to have meaning. As it happens, our Constitution-makers foresaw the need for balancing all these competing interests. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is an extremely wide definition. But, it cannot be read apart from the conspectus of the constitutional provisions within which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution intended all past and future statutes to have meaning. All laws relating to contempt of court had, according to the provisions of Art. 19 (2) to be “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right of free speech. The courts were given the power – and, indeed the responsibility – to harmonize conflicting aims, interests and values. 29. THE THIRD PRINCIPLE is to avoid confusion between personal protection of a libelled judge and prevention of obstruction of public justice and the community’s confidence in that great process. The former is not contempt, the latter is, although overlapping spaces abound. 31. THE FOURTH FUNCTIONAL CANON which channels discretionary exercise of the contempt power is that the Fourth estate which is an indispensable intermediary between the State and the people and necessary instrumentality in strengthening the forces of democracy, should be given free play within responsible limits even when the focus of its critical attention is the court, including the highest Court. 32. THE FIFTH NORMATIVE GUIDELINE for the judges to observe in this jurisdiction is not to be hypersensitive even where distortions and criticisms over step the limits, but to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and reputation by judicial rectitude. 33. THE SIXTH CONSIDERATION is that, after evaluating the totality of facts, if the court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream. 34. Speaking generally, there are occasions when the right to comment may be of supreme value (for instance, the thalidomide babies cases in England)* and the law of contempt must adjust competing values and be modified, in its application by the requirements of a free society and the shifting emphasis on paramount public interest in a given situation. In the end he concluded by saying: 56. The Court is not an inert abstraction; it is people in judicial power. In the end he concluded by saying: 56. The Court is not an inert abstraction; it is people in judicial power. And when drawing up standards for Press freedom and restraint, as an ‘interface’ with an unafraid court, we must not forget that in our constitutional scheme the most fundamental of all freedoms is the free quest for justice by the small man. ‘When beggars die, there are comets seen’ and ‘when the bull elephants fight the grass is trampled’. The contempt sanction once frozen by the high and mighty press campaign, the sufferer, in the long run, is the small Indian who seeks social transformation through a fearless judicial process. Social justice is at stake if foul press unlimited were to reign. As Justice Frankfurter stated, may be ‘judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions’ (a question I desist from deciding here), but when comment darkens into coercive imputation or calculated falsehood, threats to impartial adjudication subtly creeps. Not because judges lack firmness nor that the dignity of the bench demands enhanced respect by enforced silence, as Justice Black observed in the Los Angeles Times case. ((1941) 314 US 263 et al) but because the course of justice may be distorted by hostile attribution.” Ultimately the learned Judge concluded with these words: “Freedom is what Freedom does and Justice fails when Judges quail. For sure may plea is not for judicial pachydermy, but for dignified detachment which ignores ill-informed criticism in its tolerant stride, but strikes when offensive excesses are established. Frankly, all these are hypothetical and have no specific reference to the present case. These obiter dicta are intended to indicate the pros and cons, not to pontificate on the precise limits for exercise of contempt power and to emphasize what Chief Justice Warren Burger mentioned in Nebraska Press Association ((1976) 96 SC at 2803) as ‘something in the nature of a fiduciary duty’ of the press to act responsibly, and I may add, respectfully.” 30. This is not the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case. It is in the nature of obiter dicta. A guidance to the judges from a distinguished Judge with experience and wisdom. A piece of education to Judge – Victims, as well as the Judge.- who have to decide the case of Judge – Victims. This is not the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case. It is in the nature of obiter dicta. A guidance to the judges from a distinguished Judge with experience and wisdom. A piece of education to Judge – Victims, as well as the Judge.- who have to decide the case of Judge – Victims. It is in this back ground we shall see the law laid down by the Apex Court. 31. Mr. RANKIN C.J. IN ANANTALAL SINGH VS. ALFRED HENRY WATSON (AIR 1931 CAL.257 AT PG.261) held as under: “the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice and that the purpose of the Court’s action is a practical purpose and it is reasonably clear on the authorities that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety.” This judgment was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of RIZWAN-UL-HASAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ( AIR 1953 SC 185 ) 32. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in AIR 1954 SC 10 , observed as under at para 8: “It admits of no dispute that the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the courts. It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various Judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened”. They have approved the observations of the English Courts. Lord Morris in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Mcloed Vs. St. Aubin (1899) AC 549 (C) observed that: “Committals for contempt by scandalising the Court itself have become obsolete in this country. They have approved the observations of the English Courts. Lord Morris in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Mcloed Vs. St. Aubin (1899) AC 549 (C) observed that: “Committals for contempt by scandalising the Court itself have become obsolete in this country. Courts are satisfied to leave to public opinion attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them”. His Lordship said further: “The power summarily to commit for contempt is considered necessary for the proper administration of justice. It is not to be used for the vindication of a Judge as a person. He must resort to action for libel or criminal intimidation.” Further they have observed at paragraph 12 as under: “The position therefore is that a defamatory attack on a Judge may be a libel so far as the Judge is concerned and it would be open to him to proceed against the libellor in a proper action if he so chooses. If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public. It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court’s administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well-established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law”. 33. The Supreme Court in the case of PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR 1971 SC 221 , after referring to various judgments on the point has held as under: “There can be no manner of doubt that in this country the principles which should govern cases of the present kind are now fully settled by the previous decisions of this court. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR 1971 SC 221 , after referring to various judgments on the point has held as under: “There can be no manner of doubt that in this country the principles which should govern cases of the present kind are now fully settled by the previous decisions of this court. We may restate the result of the discussion of the above cases on this head of contempt which is by no means exhaustive. 1) It will not be right to say that committals for contempt scandalizing the court have become obsolete. 2) The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice. 3) It is open to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him because “justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men”. 4) A distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation of a Judge and what amounts to a contempt of the court. The test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by his court. It is only in the latter case that it will be punishable as contempt. 5) Alternatively the test will be whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. To borrow from the language of Mukherjee J. (as he then was) (Brahma Prakash Sharma’s case) the publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court’s administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of S. ABDUL KARIM Vs. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of S. ABDUL KARIM Vs. M.K. PRAKASH reported in AIR 1976 SC 859 at paragraph 23 has held as under: “The broad test to be applied in such cases is, whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The standard of proof required to establish a charge of ‘criminal contempt’ is the same as in any other criminal proceeding. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charge when the act or omission complained of is committed by the respondent under colour of his office as a judicial officer. Wrong order or even an act of usurpation of jurisdiction committed by a judicial Officer, owing to an error of judgment or to a misapprehension of the correct legal position, does not fall within the mischief of “criminal contempt”. Human judgment is fallible and a judicial Officer is no exception. Consequently, so long as a judicial Officer in the discharge of his official duties, acts in good faith and without any motive to defeat, obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice, the courts will not, as a rule, punish him for a “criminal contempt”. Even if it could be urged that mens rea, as such, is not an indispensable ingredient of the offence of contempt, the courts are loath to punish a contemner, if the act or omission complained of was not willful.” 35. In the case of P.N. DUDA Vs. P. SHIV SHANKAR & OTHERS reported in AIR 1988 SC 1208 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “It has been well said that if judges decay, the contempt power will not save them and so the other side of the coin is that judges, like Ceasar’s wife must be above suspicion. It has to be admitted frankly and fairly that there has been erosion of faith in the dignity of the court and in the majesty of law and that has been caused not so much by the scandalising remarks made by politicians or ministers but the inability of the courts of law to deliver quick and substantial justice to the needy. Many today suffer from remedyless evils which Courts of justice are incompetent to deal with. Many today suffer from remedyless evils which Courts of justice are incompetent to deal with. Justice cries in silence for long, far too long. The procedural wrangle is eroding the faith in our justice system. It is a criticism which the Judges and lawyers must make about themselves We must turn the search light inward. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the attempts made to decry or denigrate the judicial process, if it is seriously done. This question was examined in Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 3 SCR 497 , where it was held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public document or which is a public act of a judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. In fact such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility. Such a criticism may fairly assert that the judgment is incorrect or an error has been committed both with regard to law or established facts. But when it is said that the judge had a predisposition to convict or deliberately took a turn in discussion of evidence because he had already made up his mind to convict the accused, or has a wayward bend of mind, is attributing motives, lack of dispassionate and objective approach and analysis and pre-judging of the issues which would bring administration of justice into ridicule. Criticism of the Judges would attract greater attention than others and such criticism sometime interferes with the administration of justice and that must be judged by the yardstick whether it brings the administration of justice into a ridicule or hampers administration of justice. After all it cannot be denied that pre-disposition or subtle prejudice or unconscious prejudice or what in Indian language is called “Sanskar” are inarticulate major premises in decision making process. That element in the decision making process cannot be denied, it should be taken note of. After referring to various judgments, the Court concluded by saying: “Bearing in mind the trend in the law of contempt as noticed before, as well as some of the decisions noticed by Krishna Iyer, J, in S. Mulgaokar’s case, the speech of the Minister read in its proper perspective, did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair administration of justice. In some portions of the speech the language used could have been avoided by the Minister having the background of being a former Judge of the High Court. The Minister perhaps could have achieved his purpose by making his language mild but his facts deadly. With these observations, it must be held that there was no imminent danger of interference with the administration of justice, nor of bringing administration into disrepute. In that view it must be held that the Minister was not guilty of contempt of Court.” 36. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. D.C. SAXENA Vs. THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA reported in 1996 (5) SCC 216 dealing with the criminal contempt wherein a direct attack was made against the Chief Justice of India, has observed as under: “37. Scandalising the judges or courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect and disregard and tantamounts to contempt. All acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity or its majesty or challenge its authority, constitute contempt committed in respect of single judge or single court or in certain circumstances committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system. Therein the criticism by the Chief Minister who described the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and the judges as guided and dominated by class hatred, class interest and class prejudices etc., was held to be an attack upon judges calculated to give rise to a sense of disrespect and distrust of all judicial decisions. It was held that such criticism of authority of the law and law courts constituted contempt of the court and the Chief Minister was found guilty thereof”. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court approved the following passage from Halsbury’s Law of England on the topic of ‘Scandilising the Court’. “33. A citizen is entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the infirmities from which any institution including the judiciary suffers from. Indeed, the right to offer healthy and constructive criticism which is fair in spirit must be left unimpaired in the interest of the institution itself. Critics are instruments of reform but not those actuated by malice but those who are inspired by public seal. Indeed, the right to offer healthy and constructive criticism which is fair in spirit must be left unimpaired in the interest of the institution itself. Critics are instruments of reform but not those actuated by malice but those who are inspired by public seal. Bona fide ciriticism of any system or institution including the judiciary is aimed at including the administration of the system of institution to took inward and improve its public image. Courts, the instrumentalities of the State are subject to the Constitution and the laws and are not above criticism. Healthy and constructive criticism are tools to augment its forensic tools for improving its functions. A harmonious blend and balance existence of free speech and fearless justice counsel that law ought to be astute to criticism. Constructive public criticism even if it slightly oversteps its limits thus has fruitful play in preserving democratic health of public institutions. Section 5 of the Act accords protection to such fair criticism and saves from contempt of court. The best way to sustain the dignity and respect for the office of judge is to deserve respect from the public at large by fearlessness and objectivity of the approach to the issues arising for decision, quality of the judgment, restraint, dignity and decorum a judge observes in judicial conduct off and on the bench and rectitude. “38. …. Scurrilous abuse of a judge or court, or attacks on the personal character of a judge, are punishable contempts. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the court as a whole or the individual judges of the court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting the public, and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired. In consequence, the court has regarded with particular seriousness allegations of partially or bias on the part of a judge or a court. On the other hand, criticism of a judge’s conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to the personal character of a judge or to the impartiality of a judge or Court.” 39. On the other hand, criticism of a judge’s conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to the personal character of a judge or to the impartiality of a judge or Court.” 39. Therefore, it is of necessity to regulate the judicial process free from fouling the fountain of justice to ward off the people from undermining the confidence of the public in the purity of fountain of justice and its due administration. Justice thereby remains pure, untainted and unimpeded. The punishment for contempt, therefore, is not for the purpose of protecting or vindicating either the dignity of the court as a whole or an individual judge of the court from attack on his personal reputation but it is intended to protect the public who are subject to the jurisdiction of the court and to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. If the authority of the court remains undermined or impeded the fountain of justice gets sullied creating distrust and disbelief in the mind of the litigant public or the right-thinking public at large for the benefit of the people. Independence of the judiciary for due course of administration of justice must be protected and remain unimpaired. Scandilising the court, therefore, is a convenient expression of scurrilous attack on the majesty of justice calculated to undermine its authority and public confidence in the administration of justice. The malicious of slanderous publication inculcates in the mind of the people a general disaffection and dissatisfaction on the judicial determination and indisposes in their mind to obey them. If the people’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of justice calling for urgent action. Action for contempt is not for the protection of the judge as private individual but because they are the channels by which justice is administered to the people without fear or favour. As per the Third Schedule to the constitution oath or affirmation is taken by the Judge that he will duly and faithfully perform the duties of the office to the best of his ability, knowledge and judgment without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and will so uphold the Constitution and the laws. As per the Third Schedule to the constitution oath or affirmation is taken by the Judge that he will duly and faithfully perform the duties of the office to the best of his ability, knowledge and judgment without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and will so uphold the Constitution and the laws. In accordance therewith, judges must always remain impartial and should be known by all people to be impartial. Should they be imputed with improper motives, bias corruption or partiality, people will lose faith in them. The judge requires a degree of detachment and objectivity which cannot be obtained if judges constantly are required to look over their shoulders for fear of harassment and abuse and irresponsible demands for prosecution or resignation. The whose administration of justice would suffer due to its rippling effect. It is for this reason that scandalising the judges was considered by Parliament to be a contempt of Court publishable with imprisonment or fine. 40. Scadlaising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is sandalisation of the court and would be contempt of the court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judge’s office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judge’s office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any publication, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority or any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act part, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of the court. 42 The question, therefore, to be considered is whether the imputations referred to hereinbefore have necessary tendency to impinge or tendency to impede the public confidence in the administration of justice or would create disbelief in the efficacy of judicial administration or lower the authority or interferes with the majesty of the Court? 42 The question, therefore, to be considered is whether the imputations referred to hereinbefore have necessary tendency to impinge or tendency to impede the public confidence in the administration of justice or would create disbelief in the efficacy of judicial administration or lower the authority or interferes with the majesty of the Court? The Court, therefore, is required to consider whether the imputations made by a contemnor are calculated to bring or have the effect of bringing the Court into contempt or casting aspersions on the administration of justice tends to impede justice etc., The Court has to consider the nature of the imputations, the occasion of making the imputations and whether the contemnor foresees the possibility of his act and whether he was reckless as to either the result or had foresight like any other fact in issue to be inferred from the facts and circumstances emerging in the case. The reason is obvious that the court does not sit to try the conduct of a judge to whom the imputations are made. It would not be open to the contemnor to bring forward evidence or circumstances to justify or to show whether and how fairly imputations were justified because the Judge is not before the Court. The defence justification to an imputation would not, therefore, be available to the contemnor. The imputation of improper motives or bias cannot be justified on the principle of fair comment. 44. Law is not in any doubt that in a free democracy everybody is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness or legality of a judgment or sentence or an order of a court but he should not overstep the bounds. Though he is entitled to express that criticism objectively and with detachment in a dignified language and respectful tone with moderation, the liberty of expression should not be a licence to violently make personal attack on judge. Subject to that, an honest criticism of the administration of justice is welcome since justice is not a cloistered virtue and is entitled to respectful scrutiny. Any citizen is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness of the judgment, order or sentence with dignified and moderate language pointing out the error or defect or illegality in the judgment, order or sentence. That is after the event as post-mortem. 37. Any citizen is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness of the judgment, order or sentence with dignified and moderate language pointing out the error or defect or illegality in the judgment, order or sentence. That is after the event as post-mortem. 37. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of HARI SINGH NAGRA & OTHERS Vs. KAPIL SIBAL & OTHERS reported in (2010) 7 SCC 502 , explaining the meaning of ‘scandalizing the court’, held as under: “Scandalizing in substance is an attack on individual Judges or the court as a whole with or without referring to particular cases casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or the ability of the Judges. “Scandalizing the Court” is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either post or pending or any specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to undermine the authority of the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. 38.In the case of INDIRECT TAX PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION Vs. R.K. JAIN reported in 2010 (5) KLJ 249 (SC) dealing with the direct attack on judges and their judgments published in the editorial, it was held as under: “21. Although, the petitioner has tried to project the editorial as a piece of writing intended demean CESTAT as an institution and scandalize its functioning but we do not find anything in it which can be described as an attempt to lower the authority of CESTAT or ridicule it in the eyes of the public. Rather the object or the editorial was to highlight the irregularities in the appointment, posting and transfer of the members of CESTAT and instances of the abuse of the quasi judicial powers. What was incorporated in the editorial was nothing except the facts relating to manipulative transfer and posting of some members of CESTAT and substance of the orders passed by the particular Bench of CESTAT, which were set aside by the High courts of Karnataka and Kerala. Even, this Court was constrained to take cognizance of the unusual order passed by CESTAT of which Shri T K Jayaraman was a member whereby the appeal of the assessee was decided on merits even though the Tribunal was required to examine the question of limitation only. Even, this Court was constrained to take cognizance of the unusual order passed by CESTAT of which Shri T K Jayaraman was a member whereby the appeal of the assessee was decided on merits even though the Tribunal was required to examine the question of limitation only. By writing the editorial which must have caused embarrassment to functionaries of the Central Government and CESTAT and even some members of the petitioner-Association but that cannot be dubbed as an attempt to scandalize CESTAT as a body or interfere with the administration of justice. What the respondent projected was nothing but true state of the functioning of CESTAT on administrative side and to some extent on judicial side. By doing so, he had merely discharged the constitutional duty of a citizen enshrined in Article 51A(h). It is not the petitioner’s case that the facts narrated in the editorial regarding transfer and posting of the members of CESTAT are incorrect or that the respondent had highlighted the same with an oblique motive or that the orders passed by Karnataka and Kerala High Courts to which reference has been made in the editorial were reversed by this Court. Therefore, it is not possible to record a finding that by writing the editorial in question, the respondent has tried to scandalize the functioning of CESTAT or made an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.” Further it was held as under: “In our view, if a speech or article, editorial, etc., contains something which appears to be contemptuous and this Court or the High Court is called upon to initiate proceedings under the Act and Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, the truth should ordinarily be allowed as a defence unless the Court finds that it is only a camouflage to escape the consequences of deliberate or malicious attempt to scandalize the court or is an interference with the administration of justice. Since, the petitioner has not even suggested that what has been mentioned in the editorial is incorrect or that the respondent has presented a distorted version of the facts, there is no warrant for discarding the respondent’s assertion that whatever he has written is based on true facts and the sole object of writing the editorial was to enable the concerned authorities to take corrective/ remedial measures.” From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the law of contempt is fairly well settled in this country. As in the country of its origin namely England, committals for contempt scandalizing the Court has not become obsolete. Scandalizing in substance is an attack on individual Judges or the Court as a whole, with or without referring to any particular case or cases, casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character and the ability of the Judge. It is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. Any caricature of Judge calculated to lower the dignity of the Court would destroy confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering the dignity or authority of the Judge and an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the Court, he interferes with the performance of duties of Judges’ office or judicial process, or administration of justice bringing the Judge or Judiciary into contempt. If the authority of the Court remains undermined or impeded the fountain of justice get sullied creating distrust and disbelief in the mind of the litigant public or the right thinking public at large for the benefit of the people. It is for this reason that scandalizing the Judges was considered by the Parliament to be a contempt of Court punishable with imprisonment or fine. 39. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizen namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. Where freedom of expression, fairly exercised, subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it. Constitutionally speaking, free people are the ultimate guarantors of fearless justice. 39. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizen namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. Where freedom of expression, fairly exercised, subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it. Constitutionally speaking, free people are the ultimate guarantors of fearless justice. Top harmonise the constitutional values of free criticism, the fourth estate included, and the need for a fearless curial process and its presiding functionary, the Judge, a happy balance has to be struck, the benefit of the doubt being given generously against the judge. All laws relating to contempt of court had, according to the provisions of Art, 19(2), to be “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right of free speech. The courts were given the power – and, indeed the responsibility – to harmonize conflicting aims, interests and values. The Fourth estate which is an indispensable intermediary between the State and the people and necessary instrumentality in strengthening the forces of democracy, should be given free play within responsible limits even when the focus of its critical attention is the court, including the highest Court. Criticism of a judge’s conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to the personal character of a judge or to the impartiality of a judge or Court. In fact such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility. Critics are instruments of reform, but not those actuated by malice, but those who are inspired by public zeal. Bona fide criticism of any system or institution including the judiciary is aimed at improving the administration of the system of institution, to took inward and improve its public image. Healthy and constructive criticism are tools to augment its forensic tools for improving its functions. A harmonious blend and balanced existence of free speech and fearless justice, counsel, that law ought to be astute to criticism. Constructive public criticism even if it slightly oversteps its limits, thus has fruitful play in preserving democratic health of public institutions. 40. Healthy and constructive criticism are tools to augment its forensic tools for improving its functions. A harmonious blend and balanced existence of free speech and fearless justice, counsel, that law ought to be astute to criticism. Constructive public criticism even if it slightly oversteps its limits, thus has fruitful play in preserving democratic health of public institutions. 40. One has to avoid confusion between personal protection of a libeled judge and prevention of obstruction of public justice and the community’s confidence in that great process. The former is not contempt, the latter is, although overlapping spaces abound. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. He must resort to action for libel or criminal intimidation. The position therefore is that a defamatory attack on a Judge may be a libel so far as the Judge is concerned and it would be open to him to proceed against the libellor in a proper action, if he so chooses. One is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public. A distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amounts to a contempt of the court. The test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by the Court. Alternatively the test will be whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected, if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice is weakened. It is not to be used for the vindication of a Judge as a person. 41. The broad test to be applied in such cases is, whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. It is not to be used for the vindication of a Judge as a person. 41. The broad test to be applied in such cases is, whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream. Criticism of the Judges would attract greater attention than others and such criticism sometime interferes with the administration of justice and that must be judged by the yardstick whether it brings the administration of justice into a ridicule or hampers administration of justice. The punishment for contempt, therefore, is intended to protect the public who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. The liberty of expression should not be a licence to violently make personal attack on a judge. Subject to that, an honest criticism of the administration of justice is welcome since justice is not a cloistered virtue and is entitled to respectful scrutiny. The Court has to consider the nature of the imputations, the occasion of making the imputations and whether the contemnor foresees the possibility of his act and whether he was reckless as to either the result or had foresight like any other fact in issue to be inferred from the facts and circumstances emerging in the case. The jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice. The Court is willing to ignore, by a majestic liberalism trifling and venial offences. The Court will not be prompted to act as a result of an easy irritability. The Judges should not be hypersensitive, even when distortions and criticisms overstep the limits. They should deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude. Therefore, dignified detachment, ignoring ill-informed criticism in its tolerant stride, should be the underlining principle. The Court will not be prompted to act as a result of an easy irritability. The Judges should not be hypersensitive, even when distortions and criticisms overstep the limits. They should deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude. Therefore, dignified detachment, ignoring ill-informed criticism in its tolerant stride, should be the underlining principle. “The dogs may bark, the caravan will pass”. 42. The best way to sustain the dignity and respect for the office of judge is to deserve respect from the public at large by fearlessness and objectivity of the approach to the issues arising for decision, quality of the judgment, restraint, dignity and decorum a judge observes in judicial conduct off and on the bench and rectitude. It has been well said that if judges decay, the contempt power will not save them and so the other side of the coin is that judges, like Ceaser’s wife must be above suspicion. We must turn the search light inward. 43. In this background we have to find out whether statements made in the aforesaid publications constitute a criminal contempt under the Act. 44. The particulars furnished therein discloses that 1,421 students applied for revaluation in 9th semester examination held in November-December 2008. Out of them 393 students applied for revaluation of the paper-Civil Procedure Code. Out of them 46 students from M.S. Ramaiah Law College, Bangalore, had applied for revaluation. The complainant’s son is one such person. He was studying in M.S. Ramaiah Law College. The last date for applying for revaluation with fine was 28.2.2009 and the results of the revaluation were to be announced on 22.5.2009. No Board was constituted for the purpose of revaluation of the 5 years LLB course for the year 2008 09. The revaluation work started on 2.5.2009 and ended on 22.5.2009. They have not furnished the date of application for revaluation by Sri Phaniraj Kashyap. To a query whether the Vice Chancellor has exercised his power under Section 15 of the Karnataka State Universities Act for early revaluation of Sri Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer script, the answer was the University at no point of time had meted out any special treatment to Sri Phaniraj Kashyap in the revaluation of CPC answer script for the examination held in November-December 2008. Further it was stated that the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University has not exercised any power under Section 15 of the Act in the revaluation of Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap’s CPC answer scripts and no such power has been exercised by any Vice Chancellor for the last five years. It is asserted that the revaluation of Sri Phaniraj Kashyap’s answer script has been conducted as per the usual procedure. Section 16 of the Examination Manual deals with appointment of examiners. The panel of examiners of 5 years and 3 years LLB examination of May 2008 is also produced. The covering letter by the Chairman of the Board of Examiners shows it was prepared on 16.6.2008 whereas Annexure-R5 shows appointment of a Coordinator for revaluation was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 13.5.2009 and Dr.T.R. Subramanya, Principal, University Law College, is appointed as Coordinator for revaluation of 3 years and 5 years LLB Coding/Decoding/Tabulation and Valuation Unit work pertaining to December 2008 exams with effect from 2.5.2009. If this document is to be believed, on 5.5.2009 when the paper was revalued the Coordinator has not been appointed. Without the appointment of a Coordinator no revaluation process could have commenced. In the petition it is specifically asserted that, at the request of the student, taking pity on him, the Vice Chancellor has exercised the power under Section 15 of the Act and got this paper revalued immediately. Whereas, the information furnished under the RTI Act shows the Vice Chancellor has not exercised any such power. In the past 5 years no Vice Chancellor has exercised that power. The press report shows after the publication of the first article, in a record time 3,000 answer scripts for revaluation was revalued and the benefit of that revaluation is given to such persons. 45. These materials will clearly indicate that all is not well with the University. The Bangalore University has thrown to winds the procedure prescribed for the revaluation. It is quite natural that the respondents in discharge of their duties while exposing this irregularity in the University have published the report. What they are trying to convey in the said report is the University is lethargic. The valuation is not satisfactory. When there is provision for revaluation, it is not done within the time limit prescribed. The students are put to great inconvenience. However, in some instances they act immediately and grant the relief. What they are trying to convey in the said report is the University is lethargic. The valuation is not satisfactory. When there is provision for revaluation, it is not done within the time limit prescribed. The students are put to great inconvenience. However, in some instances they act immediately and grant the relief. They want to know how the same relief is not granted to persons who are similarly placed. It is only through the investigating journalism we have seen in this country things which are done behind the scene by the authorities clandestinely are exposed and made accountable. That is how the democracy works. In spite of inefficiency, corruption, nepotism, casteism, in all walks of life, it is only these attempts by the press and sometimes by the judiciary that these pernicious tendencies are fought and justice is done to the persons who need them. The attack is on the authorities and its functionaries in not discharging its duties in accordance with law. The attack is at the same time to fight the tendency to bend the rules. As we could see from the entire report, the intention was not to attack any Judge of this Court or the institution as such. There is no intention to undermine the Majesty of law or its institution. Incidentally one of the persons to whom the preference is given contrary to the rules happens to be a son of Judge of this Court, a fact which is not denied and cannot be disputed. Merely because there is a reference to a High Court Judge in the said report, it cannot be construed as an attack on a Judge of this Court or the institution. Assuming it is an attack on that particular Judge, at the worst it may amount to defamation. The law on the point is well settled. He has a remedy to agitate before the Civil Court, Contempt is not the remedy. 46. Contempt of Courts Act is not enacted to protect Judges when they are attacked in their personal matters. Only when they are discharging their official functions, to enable them to discharge the functions fearlessly, without being afraid of the consequences, this legislation is enacted. This law has to be used sparingly. The wisdom lies in invoking these provisions economically, in rarest of rare cases. It cannot be used to stifle the freedom of expression. Only when they are discharging their official functions, to enable them to discharge the functions fearlessly, without being afraid of the consequences, this legislation is enacted. This law has to be used sparingly. The wisdom lies in invoking these provisions economically, in rarest of rare cases. It cannot be used to stifle the freedom of expression. The Press has a fundamental right to bring to the notice of the public the way these autonomous authorities are functioning, how the innocent students are made to suffer whatever they have written is in public interest. They are agitating a public cause. Thee is no intention on their part to attack any Judge of this Court of Judges of this Court or the institution as such, as sought to be made out. In fact the entire allegation in the petition read as a whole refers only to the student involved in revaluation. If the student feels that he is defamed by the said article, he cannot have the remedy of contempt of Court. His remedy is elsewhere. 47. This unsavory episode brings into the fore how a trivial matter of this nature, if not contained, could create problems to the Judges, over which they have no control. As rightly pointed out in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the members of the legal fraternity have to turn their eyes inwards. Today not only the conduct of the Judges but also the conduct of the members of their family is under public scrutiny. When the family members, because of their proximity to the Judges enjoy privileges, it is high time they should know their limitations and be prepared to sacrifice some of their right. That is what is expected of them. They also should conduct in such a manner that their actions in no way affect the Judge and the institution. Today when judges are working under tremendous pressure, also under attack from various quarters, the family members should not become one more source of head ache and trouble. Dignified behaviour is not only expected of the Judge but also from the members of his/her family. The Judge should not be embarrassed by their conduct. 48. From the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the allegation read as a whole is not calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. Dignified behaviour is not only expected of the Judge but also from the members of his/her family. The Judge should not be embarrassed by their conduct. 48. From the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the allegation read as a whole is not calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. The wrong done to the Judge personally, if at all amounts to defamatory attack on a Judge and it may be a libel and it is open to the Judge to proceed against the libellor in an appropriate action, if he so chooses. It would not constitute a wrong done to the public or injury to the public or it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the public in regard to integrity or fairness of a Judge or it in no way deter the actual and prospective litigant from placing complete reliance upon the Court’s administration of justice. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this contempt petition. Accordingly, we drop the proceedings and discharge the accused.