JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. Jaleel T.A., a resident of Kochi, was the printer, publisher, and owner of a weekly newspaper—My Kochi—now, defunct and closed. On Friday, the 5th December 2014, he ran a banner article in his weekly newspaper titled, “Huge Corruption?”. The news item concerns the manner of appointing judges to the existing vacancies in the High Court of Kerala. And the newspaper levels serious, scurrilous allegations about what it calls ‘corruption and nepotism in judicial appointments.’ 2. Briefly stated, the newspaper asserts that the collegium has recommended the names of three advocates, one of whom is understood to have no practice at all. That advocate who later was elevated to the Bench did not have even a single vakalath in the entire year. The newspaper in its inquiry has come to know that from 2011 till the news item was published, that advocate had only four vakalaths. When advocates like him occupied the seat of justice at the expense of meritorious lawyers, it would only shake the confidence reposed by the general public in the judiciary; it may also lead to denial of justice to the deserving. Two advocates found place in the panel because a particular judge had showed special interest. Scurrilous, indeed. 3. The news item further reads that earlier, too, serious allegations were raised that several lawyers with no merit have become judges using their influence. All these, according to the news report suggest that there has been huge corruption in judges’ appointments. Ironically, this news item shares the page with another piece of sad news: the death of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyyer on the previous day. 4. Sri Ravikrishnan, claiming to be a public-spirited lawyer, filed an application—S.P.No.2 of 2014—before the learned Advocate General, the State of Kerala, by invoking section 15 of the Contempt of Court's Act 1971 (“the Act”). He has sought the sanction to move this Court to prosecute Jaleel T.A. for the acts of criminal contempt, viz. scandalizing the court. 5. Served with a notice, Jaleel filed his counter statement. Primarily, he has defended himself by asserting that the caption of the news item carried a question mark thereby indicating that it is not a conclusive statement. According to him, the entire article centres on “the hand picking of some advocates to be recommended for appointing judges of the High Court Kerala”. Primarily, he has defended himself by asserting that the caption of the news item carried a question mark thereby indicating that it is not a conclusive statement. According to him, the entire article centres on “the hand picking of some advocates to be recommended for appointing judges of the High Court Kerala”. He has also averred that he has accessed the memorandum of procedure of appointment of High Court judges on the web site of the Ministry of Law & Justice before publishing the article. 6. As a responsible citizen and as a person engaged actively in the media, the fourth estate, Jaleel claims to have been “moved” and “naturally doubted that the ongoing sufficient process is not fair”. He has also asserted that the senior judges in the collegium are acting in their personal capacity as seniors among the judges, but are not representing the judges of the High Court. The collegium decision, according to him, ought to be democratic, but not based on the individual view. The newspaper, Jaleel concludes, shares his anxiety with the readers, and fair criticism is not offensive at all. So, he opposed the Advocate General's granting any sanction for his prosecution. 7. On hearing both the parties, the learned Advocate General through an order dated 10th May 2016 permitted Mr. Ravikrishnan to move this Court to prosecute Jaleel under section 15(1)(b) of the Act. 8. Initially, after entering his appearance through a learned counsel, Jaleel filed an affidavit dated 29th August 2016—a cryptic one—that he sincerely regrets publishing the news item and that he apologizes unconditionally. Later, on 21.10.2016, neither Jaleel nor his counsel were present, though this court did not dispense with Jaleel's presence. Therefore, this Court adjourned the matter to 4.11.2016, clarifying that Jaleel's repeated absence may entail coercive steps. On 4.11.2016, Jaleel's counsel sought two weeks’ time to file a detailed affidavit/objection. 9. A learned Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 4.11.2016, besides granting time, observed that in the next adjournment, the matter would be heard on whether charges should be framed against Jaleel. On 23rd November 2016, this Court passed a detailed order observing, among other things, that though Jaleel earlier sought further time to file a detailed affidavit, he took no steps in that regard. This Court adjourned the matter to the next day to consider whether charges should be framed against Jaleel. On 23rd November 2016, this Court passed a detailed order observing, among other things, that though Jaleel earlier sought further time to file a detailed affidavit, he took no steps in that regard. This Court adjourned the matter to the next day to consider whether charges should be framed against Jaleel. On 24th, Jaleel placed on record a detailed affidavit expressing his unconditional apology. Thereafter the counsel for both the parties have submitted elaborately on the issue whether this publication has scandalised the Court. 10. In the end, Jaleel, who appeared in person, has once again regretted the publication and apologized. To make amends, Jaleel has offered to publish in a regional newspaper having wife circulation in Kochi, where his now defunct tabloid once had its circulation, a corrective-cum-apology, thereby setting the record straight. 11. The Court has accepted the proposal and the unconditional apology, too. 12. We, therefore, close this contempt case accepting Jaleel’s apology and his offer to publish a corrective statement-cum-apology in a regional newspaper having wide circulation in Cochin within 30 days from today. The respondent should produce a copy of the publication to be made before the Court so that it could be made part of the record. No order on costs.