JUDGMENT Jasti Chelameswar, C.J. 1. This contempt case is filed by the Gauhati High Court Bar Association complaining that the sole respondent herein, who is an advocate and a member of the petitioner Association, made certain objectionable statements in the open court on 28.11.2008. It appears from the petitioner that a number of advocates addressed complaint to the petitioner Association detailing the incident which occurred in the court on 28.11.2008 and requested the Association to initiate appropriate action against the respondent. It appears, on receipt of the representation the petitioner Association in an extraordinary general meeting held on 5.12.2008 discussed the matter and the Executive Committee Meeting held on 10.12.2008 decided to constitute a Committee to enquire into the matter. Accordingly a Committee consisting of six members of the Association was constituted. According to the petitioner the said Enquiry Committee submitted a report dated 17.3.2009. The substance of the report is that the Committee found the respondent guilty of the conduct which is described in the petitioner as follows: ... Not only communal, un-parliamentarian, unethical and undignified but are also highly contemptuous and unbecoming of a lawyer calling for appropriate drastic action against the Respondent under the relevant laws and the rules. 2. Thereafter the said report was placed before the extraordinary general meeting of the petitioner Association held on 22.4.2009 wherein a resolution to the following effect was adopted: (A) The General Body has accepted the Enquiry Report. (B) The matter along with all necessary documents will be forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the Association. (C) The matter will be referred to the Bar Council of N.E. for taking necessary action. (D) A Contempt Proceeding will be filed by the Gauhati High Court Bar Association against Mr. Muij Uddin Mahmud. Hence, the present petition. 3. Haying regard to the sensitivity of the matter notice before admission was issued to the respondent on 29.7.2009. 4. Pursuant to the said notice the respondent filed an affidavit dated 9.1.2009. At para 5 of the affidavit the respondent categorically denied the allegation that he made some offensive remarks in the course of his submission on 28.11.2008. Apart from that the respondent in his affidavit chose to make various counter allegations against the petitioner Association, in substance complaining that the petitioner Association is not bona fide pursuing the present contempt case. 5. Apart from that the respondent in his affidavit chose to make various counter allegations against the petitioner Association, in substance complaining that the petitioner Association is not bona fide pursuing the present contempt case. 5. In view of the denial made by the respondent in his affidavit in opposition it becomes a question of fact whether the respondent made the alleged statement, which forms the basis of the contempt case. We are not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner is a responsible Association of Members of the profession to which the respondent also belongs, which chose to initiate the present contempt proceedings after some enquiry into the matter. However, that does not mean that the respondent can be found guilty solely on the basis of the decision taken by the petitioner Association. Such a procedure might be highly democratic but in our view not certainly liberal. The rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India are products of liberal democratic philosophy. 6. Therefore, it follows necessarily that a further enquiry into the matter for establishment of the truth of the allegations is necessary in order to find the respondent clearly guilty of contempt of this Court. 7. The question is whether such an enquiry is really called for in the instant case. The practice of punishing somebody for criminal contempt is to be resorted to with great deal of circumspection. It is said repeatedly in the context of criminal contempt that the dignity of the court is not to be protected or cannot be protected by resorting to contempt proceedings. It is said that it must "rest on surer foundations". 8. Assuming for the sake or argument, (we emphasise) only "for the sake or argument", that the respondent did in fact make the statement attributed to him, such an intemperate statement by itself, in our view, does not undermine the dignity of this Court. On the other hand it only demonstrates the propensity of a Member of the profession to be flippant. 9. Therefore, we do not deem it worthwhile to dig into the issue, which occurred more than a year back, creating unwarranted publicity which itself, in our view, would create much greater damage to the institution than the alleged contempt. 10. On the other hand it only demonstrates the propensity of a Member of the profession to be flippant. 9. Therefore, we do not deem it worthwhile to dig into the issue, which occurred more than a year back, creating unwarranted publicity which itself, in our view, would create much greater damage to the institution than the alleged contempt. 10. In the final analysis, we are of the opinion that it must be left to the good sense of the individual Members of the Bar to decide whether this institution is to be preserved or not. 11. The contempt case is, therefore, dismissed.