JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the Court of Session, Ernakulam Division in Crl.M.P No.351 of 2018 in SC No.662 of 2016, in a contempt proceedings, and referred the matter to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 3. Petitioner is a legal practitioner with 18 years of standing, who claims to have appeared in several Courts throughout India. It is also stated that, he always holds all courts with respect and regard, and till date, petitioner has not made any comment or observation about any court in a disparaging or disrespectful manner. 4. Petitioner appeared in S.C.No.662 of 2016 on the files of the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam. That was a case which attracted State-wide attention with an incident related to a murder of 30 year old law student. One migrant labourer from Assam was the accused and after trial, the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to death, by judgment dated 13.12.2017. 5. Since the case had attracted wide attention among the people, the media including electronic media was meticulously following the case at every stage, and the court had forbidden them from attending the trial. Petitioner, after the pronouncement of the judgment and sentence, came out of the court, and a cluster of media persons rushed to him for his reaction about the judgment. According to the petitioner, he did not make any disparaging reference against the Sessions Judge, but only informed the media that he proposes to file an appeal, as the judgment, according to him, suffers from various errors. The print media has reported the comments of the petitioner not strictly in conformity or the exact words spoken by him. Though the petitioner had never made any disrespectful remarks about the Principal District Judge, Ernakulam, one of the lawyers who had a grouse against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein, filed an application under Sec.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging contempt against the petitioner and seeking reference to the High Court. 6. On receipt of the same, petitioner was issued with a notice by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and the petition was numbered as Crl.M.P No.351 of 2018. 6. On receipt of the same, petitioner was issued with a notice by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and the petition was numbered as Crl.M.P No.351 of 2018. Petitioner entered appearance and submitted a detailed defence statement raising various contentions including lack of competence of the applicant before the Court of Sessions and the total un-sustainability of the petition before the Court of Sessions. However, the Court of Sessions has passed an order on 16.03.2018, referring the matter to the High Court of Kerala under Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, for proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. The case advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the entire proceeding initiated against the 2nd petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act by the respondent and the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam are all tainted with illegalities and irregularities and therefore, the reference is illegal and arbitrary. 8. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. 9. As is discussed above, the sole question to be considered by this Court is, whether any manner of interference is possible in Ext.P4 reference order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. A reference to Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be worthwhile in this regard, which read thus: “15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.--(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-- (a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the Advocate-General, [or] (c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer. (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. Explanation.--In this section, the expression “Advocate-General” means-- (a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General; (b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General or the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established; (c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” 10. Therefore, on a reading of sub-section (2) of Sec.15 of Act, 1971, it is evident that, in the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. Sub-section (3) stipulates that, every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. 11. I am also of the opinion that, a reference to Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is appropriate, which read thus: “8. Reference by Subordinate Court.--(1) Before making a reference under Section 15 of the Act, the Subordinate Court may hold such inquiry as it deems fit into the circumstances leading to the reference. Reference by Subordinate Court.--(1) Before making a reference under Section 15 of the Act, the Subordinate Court may hold such inquiry as it deems fit into the circumstances leading to the reference. (ii) Such reference shall contain: (a) the name and address of the person alleged to have committed the contempt, (b) the facts constituting the alleged contempt, (c) the circumstances leading to the reference, (d) all the relevant records, and (e) draft charges.” Therefore, on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances evaluated by the Sessions Judge in Ext.P4 order, read along with Rule 8, it is clear that, the Sessions Judge has conducted such enquiry in accordance with law. 12. That apart, Sec.5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 protects fair criticism of judicial act, which stipulates that, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided. Therefore, it is clear, in order to identify, whether the statements made by the petitioner is fair criticism or not, the issue is to be adjudicated in the contempt petition filed. Viewed in that angle, it can be easily deciphered that the findings rendered by the Sessions Judge in the reference order are only prima facie findings, justifying his action of reference. So also, Sec.10 of Act, 1971 deals with powers of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts, which stipulates that, every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself. The proviso thereto is also relevant, which read thus: “Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” On a conjoint reading of the said provisions, it is amply clear, ultimately, guilt in contempt of court proceedings is to be found out by the High Court. Even assuming that there are any conclusive findings in Ext.P4 order passed by the Sessions Court, the same are only subject to the above powers conferred on the High Court under Act, 1971. Even assuming that there are any conclusive findings in Ext.P4 order passed by the Sessions Court, the same are only subject to the above powers conferred on the High Court under Act, 1971. Moreover, as per Rule 3 of the Rules, every petition/proceeding for initiating action for contempt shall be received in the registry of the High Court and registered as “Contempt of Court Case”. 13. In this context, a reference to the definition of 'criminal contempt' provided under Sec.2(c) of Act, 1971 is relevant, which read thus: “(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 proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.” 14. The predominant contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, the Sessions Court had only the power to refer the matter to this Court in accordance with Sec.15(2) of Act, 1971, however, the Sessions Court has entered into definite findings as if to appear that the petitioner has committed contempt, and therefore, the reference itself is bad, illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that, the reference order is numbered as 'Criminal', for which the Sessions Court is not vested with any power. However, on a conjoint reading of Sec.2(c) with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec.15 of Act, 1971, it is explicit, the reference court should make clear findings in respect to the nature of contempt. Therefore, the findings are prima facie opinion of the Sessions Court during the course of adjudication to decide, the nature of the proceedings to be referred as per Sec.15(2) of Act, 1971. Therefore, the findings are prima facie opinion of the Sessions Court during the course of adjudication to decide, the nature of the proceedings to be referred as per Sec.15(2) of Act, 1971. Without such a finding, the Sessions Court cannot make a reference, since the initial burden was left with the Sessions Court to identify whether the application filed by the 2nd respondent, is entitled to be referred to the High Court, which thus means, if no prima facie case is made out, by the subordinate court, it can dismiss the petition and drop the proceedings. Moreover, the nomenclature used in a petition to number the same cannot stand in the way of defending the case in accordance with the provisions of law, and it is done to identify the nature of reference as contemplated under Sec.15(3) of Act, 1971. To draw an analogy, Rule 5(c) of the Rules dealing with contents of the petition stipulates that a petition shall contain the nature of contempt, “civil” or “criminal”. Therefore, I do not find any justification or legality in the arguments so advanced. 15. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me extensively through Ext.P4 order and I find that the findings rendered by the Sessions Court are only prima facie opinion and reasons made in order to justify the reference made to this Court under Sec.15(2) of Act, 1971. Moreover, sub-section (3) of Sec.15 makes it amply clear that the nature of contempt should be found out by the reference court itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the numbering of the petition as Crl.M.P is affecting the petitioner in any manner, much less, any legal right vested on the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. That apart, in my considered opinion, these are all matters to be considered by the High Court in the reference order, after securing appearance of the respective parties. So also, it is worthwhile to note that, under Rule 8 of the Rules, the reference order is to be accompanied by a draft charge also, which thus means, without forming prima facie opinion, no draft charges can be framed. 16. Above all, the mandatory requirement under law before making a reference is undertaken by the Sessions Court. So also, it is worthwhile to note that, under Rule 8 of the Rules, the reference order is to be accompanied by a draft charge also, which thus means, without forming prima facie opinion, no draft charges can be framed. 16. Above all, the mandatory requirement under law before making a reference is undertaken by the Sessions Court. Notice was issued to the petitioner, opportunity was provided to file objection and thereafter, the petitioner was heard and the issue with respect to reference was adjudicated at length by relying on the proposition of law laid down by the apex court in its various judgments. Therefore, there is clear application of mind before making a reference. 17. Learned Senior Counsel has advanced, yet another contention with respect to the right of a third person to file an application seeking reference. In my considered opinion, making imputations and allegations against a judge or Court affecting the dignity and prestige of the Court, is a matter affecting social order and the rule of law prevailing in the country, interfering with the democratic principles founded on the three pillars namely the legislature, executive and the judiciary. Such allegations will severely affect and damage the integrity and independence of the judiciary and thereby affecting the faith, trust and confidence reposed by the public at large on the justice delivery system as such. Therefore, any citizen interested in upholding the rule of law is entitled as of right to approach the subordinate court concerned seeking reference. Be it also noted, there is no prohibition or legal fetter created under the Act or Rules, disabling a citizen to invoke the provision in question. It also means, the subordinate court is entitled to make a reference by its own motion or on any application made by any person. 18. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, as per Rule 6 of the Rules, every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a bench of not less than two judges and therefore, this writ petition, accordingly is to be placed before a Division Bench. However, in my considered view, the provisions of Act, 1971 and the Rules are meant to deal with contempt proceedings and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the said submission has no force of law. 19. However, in my considered view, the provisions of Act, 1971 and the Rules are meant to deal with contempt proceedings and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the said submission has no force of law. 19. Therefore, in all respects, sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings and thereafter only, the reference order is made. In my considered opinion, there are no circumstances established by the petitioner before this Court in order to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality or arbitrariness. Therefore, I do not propose to consider the subject matter on merits. All the questions of fact raised by the petitioner in respect of Ext.P4 reference order are left open. I also hold that the writ petition is not maintainable since the entire issues may have to be considered by the High Court, and the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all contentions in respect of the illegality or otherwise of the reference order. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.