JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ASGI representing the opposite party CBI. 2. All these four petitioners have assailed the common impugned order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi, whereunder notices have been issued upon them for having caused criminal contempt, as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. The order impugned reads as under: “03.01.2018. On 21.12.2017 pronounced the judgment in this case and after the said judgment was delivered in Print Media and Electronic Media intentionally by contemptuous and scandalous words used by 1. Tejeshvi Yadav, Ex. Deputy C.M., Bihar, Patna 2. Manish Tiwary, Spokesman Congress-I, 3. Raghuwans Prasad Singh, Active member of R.J.D. and 4. Shivanand Tiwary, Active Member of R.J.D. tended to lower down authority of this court, Presiding Officer and Judicial Systems, thereby caused criminal contempt as defined Under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Office is directed to issue notice against namely 1. Tejeshvi Yadav, Ex. Deputy C.M., Bihar, Patna 2. Manish Tiwary, Spokesman Congress-I, 3. Raghuwans Prasad Singh, Active member of R.J.D. and 4. Shivanand Tiwary, Active Member of R.J.D. and they are directed to appear physically on 23.01.2018 at 10:30 A.M. before this court and explain why not the further proceeding may be initiated against them in accordance with law and procedure.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 77/2018 has made the following submissions: (i) No remarks have been made by the petitioner which is contemptuous and scandalous or tends to lower down the authority of the learned court. (ii) The power to punish for contempt of court has not been conferred upon the subordinate judiciary. Subordinate Judiciary can make a reference under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ranveer Yadav Versus State of Bihar [ (2010) 11 SCC 493 para-19]. (iii) The impugned notice has been issued in a mechanical manner without specifying the instances of contemptuous acts and there are no materials on record to suggest so. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 2725 para-18. (iii) The impugned notice has been issued in a mechanical manner without specifying the instances of contemptuous acts and there are no materials on record to suggest so. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 2725 para-18. (iv) Learned court has completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 401 of Contempt of Courts (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001 which contains the provisions relating to contempt of Subordinate Courts. It envisages that before making a reference, the Subordinate Court shall hold a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show-cause notice accompanied by copies of the relevant documents, if any, to the contemnor and after hearing him, it shall write a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed. The impugned order and notice completely falls short of the mandatory requirement prescribed thereunder. (iv) The impugned notice is not accompanied by any relevant documents, nor does it makes reference to any relevant documents. Petitioner in such situation has been precluded from defending himself and question the findings that he has caused criminal contempt of court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ (2010) 3 SCC 705 para 27 & 40 thereof]. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order passed on conjectures and surmises has, in effect, held the petitioner liable for having caused criminal contempt of court and in such a way, caused gross violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Anand Versus Registrar, Delhi High Court [ (2009) 8 SCC 106 , para-141 andin the case of Kanwar Singh Saini Versus High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 , para-38]. 6. By the impugned notice, petitioner has been directed to appear physically even before initiation of contempt of court proceedings, as conceived under Rule 401 of Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001. It is further submitted that the impugned notice if not interfered with, may result in serious adverse consequence and amount to usurpation of power reserved with the High Court. 6. By the impugned notice, petitioner has been directed to appear physically even before initiation of contempt of court proceedings, as conceived under Rule 401 of Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001. It is further submitted that the impugned notice if not interfered with, may result in serious adverse consequence and amount to usurpation of power reserved with the High Court. Finally, learned counsel submits that a perusal of media statements issued in press briefing by the petitioner, makes it clear that no scandalous / contemptuous words whatsoever were uttered by him to fall within the meaning of criminal contempt envisaged under sections 2(c) (i)/(ii)/(iii) of the Act. Learned counsel has made specific reference to three newspapers Namely, ‘Prabhat Khabar’, ‘Dainik Jagran’ and ‘Hindustan’ edition dated 24.12.2017 which does not contain any reference to any statement made by the petitioner against the Learned Court or the Learned Judge. The other newspaper is ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ edition dated 04.01.2018, which is of subsequent date after issuance of the impugned notice. It is submitted that the powers of the court to punish for contempt of court are not to be causally exercised. If a person by means of publication, whether of words, spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise does any act which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court or prejudices or tends to prejudice or interfere or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, then only such a proceeding for criminal contempt of court can be initiated. Position of law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court. In the facts of the present case, petitioner has made no such statement or remarks which are either scandalous or have interfered with the judicial proceedings or obstructed with the administration of justice or have tended to do so. The impugned order and the notice issued thereunder deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in Cr. M.P. Nos. 210/2018, 202/2018 and 263/2018 have also supported the legal submissions made by the learned senior counsel Mr. Mazumdar. The impugned order and the notice issued thereunder deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in Cr. M.P. Nos. 210/2018, 202/2018 and 263/2018 have also supported the legal submissions made by the learned senior counsel Mr. Mazumdar. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1988) 3 SCC 319 , para-25 and 26] and submits that news items are in the nature of hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon to take cognizance of such a serious charges of criminal contempt of court. Learned counsel by referring to the newspaper reports which are annexed to the report of the learned court, submits that there are no such statements borne out from these newspapers which could, in any way, said to have caused criminal contempt of the court. One of the newspapers ‘Prabhat Khabar’ edition of 24.12.2017 which refers to certain statements made by the petitioners in Cr. M.P. Nos. 202/2018 and 210/2018, cannot be constructed in any manner as a comment on the court which has a tendency to interfere in the administration of justice or to scandalize it. He reiterates that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. There are no material findings therein to hold that petitioners have caused criminal contempt of court. These petitioners have also been seriously prejudiced because no materials have been enclosed to the impugned notices asking them to show-cause. In such circumstances, if the impugned order is not interfered with, it may result in miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned ASGI submits that the impugned order has simply asked the petitioners to explain as to why further proceedings be not initiated against them in accordance with law and procedure. Learned ASGI has however also submitted that there are no explicit materials or findings recorded therein whereby, the learned court has been persuaded to hold that these petitioners have caused criminal contempt of this Court. The newspaper reports have been furnished by the learned court along with the report, but they surely do not find any reference in the impugned order. The newspaper reports have been furnished by the learned court along with the report, but they surely do not find any reference in the impugned order. Since the materials are before this Court, it is up to the court to take a view in the matter, whether their statements have in any manner the tendency to scandalize the institution or lower down its authority or interfere with administration of justice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned ASGI. I have also gone through the impugned order and other materials on record. It would be proper to first refer to the relevant provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Contempt of Courts (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001which relate to the subject matter of the case. Section 2(c) and Section 15 of the Act of 1971 are quoted hereunder:- 2. (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; 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 of 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. The High Court has framed rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 known as Contempt of Courts (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001. Rule 401 contains the provision whereunder, the proceedings for contempt of the Subordinate Courts can be initiated. It reads as under:- 401. (i) Reference under Section 15(2) of the Act may be made by a Subordinate Court either suo motu or on application received by it. (ii) Before making a reference the subordinate Court shall hold a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause notice accompanied by copies of the relevant documents, if any, to the contemner and after hearing him, the subordinate Court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed. 11. In the light of the materials on record, the first issue which arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order and the notice issued thereunder, are in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971 read with the Contempt of Courts’ (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001? 11. In the light of the materials on record, the first issue which arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order and the notice issued thereunder, are in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971 read with the Contempt of Courts’ (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001? The other issue is, whether the materials referred to in the report by the Learned Court, in effect, would amount to scandalizing the court or lowering down its authority or tends to do so, and / or, whether they interfere with due course of the judicial proceeding or tends to do so and / or, whether they tend to interfere or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice? 12. The power of contempt is said to be the inherent attribute of the superior court of law. This power has not been given to the subordinate judiciary, but in an appropriate case, the subordinate judiciary can make a reference to the High Court under section 15(2) of the Act. When the High Court exercises its power on a reference under section 15(2) of the Act, it virtually exercises the same as a guardian of the subordinate court to protect its proceedings against an outrage and affront. As highest judicial authority in the State, it is discharging its jurisdiction in loco parentis over the subordinate judiciary in the State. Criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Act means that offending or affront act, by means of publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or by doing any other act has the effect of scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court or tends to do so or it prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding or that it interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to do so in the administration of justice in any other manner. The paramount interest is to protect the majesty of the court, its sanctity and the purity of the judicial proceedings. The Apex Court has also cautioned that the contempt power has to be exercised with utmost caution and in an appropriate case and that is why, High Court has been entrusted with it. [See: (2010) 11 SCC 493 , para-20]. 13. The Apex Court has also cautioned that the contempt power has to be exercised with utmost caution and in an appropriate case and that is why, High Court has been entrusted with it. [See: (2010) 11 SCC 493 , para-20]. 13. In a proceeding of contempt of court, principles of natural justice applies with greater rigour than any other proceeding as it is not strictly controlled by the provisions of the Cr. Pc and Evidence Act. In the case of R.K. Anand (Supra), the Apex Court at para-141 observed as under: “141. It is now well settled and so also the High Court has held that the proceeding of contempt of court is sui generis. In other words, it is not strictly controlled by the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act. What, however, applies to a proceeding of contempt of court are the principles of natural justice and those principles apply to the contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. This means that the court must follow a procedure that is fair and objective; that should cause no prejudice to the person facing the charge of contempt of court and that should allow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend himself/herself. (See Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re and Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey.)” 14. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of the court, unless such intention is clearly established.Nor should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of propriety is involved. In the case of Rizwan-ul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. [ AIR 1953 SC 185 ], the Apex Court reiterated the well settled principles that 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. Theobservations to that effect made in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior [ (2007) 14 SCC 126 ],are usefully extracted hereunder. “20. This Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Theobservations to that effect made in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior [ (2007) 14 SCC 126 ],are usefully extracted hereunder. “20. This Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of court unless such intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of property is involved. In Rizwan-ul-Hasan v. State of U.P. this Court reiterated the well-settled principle that 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. Of late, a perception that is slowly gaining ground among public is that sometimes, some Judges are showing over sensitiveness with a tendency to treat even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts, and to command respect. But Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand respect by demonstration of power. 21. Nearly two centuries ago, Justice John Marshall, the Chief Justice of American Supreme Court warned that the power of judiciary lies, not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences, nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence and faith of the common man. The purpose of the power to punish for criminal contempt is to ensure that the faith and confidence of the public in administration of justice is not eroded. Such power, vested in the High Courts, carries with it great responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no room for complaints of ostentatious exercise of power. Three acts, which are often cited as examples of exercise of such power are: (i) punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations, by treating them as contempt of court; (ii) frequent summoning of government officers to court (to sermonise or to take them to task for perceived violations); and (iii) making avoidable adverse comments and observations against persons who are not parties. It should be remembered that exercise of such power results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary. It should be remembered that exercise of such power results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary. Be that as it may.” 15. In the case of Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh (Supra), the Apex Court in a case where the High Court proceeded to punish the alleged contemnor guilty of contempt of court in a proceeding initiated suomotu for criminal contempt, categorically held that there must be a clear cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally. It was also observed at Para-23 of the Report that court should not punish an alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises in criminal contempt. Apex Court also examined whether contempt proceeding have been concluded in conformity with the rules and came to the opinion that there had been no compliance of the mandatory requirement contained in 1952 Rules. The impugned judgment was held to suffer from non-observance of the principles of natural justice and not ensuring the compliance with statutory 1952 Rules. 16. Outcome of the aforesaid discussions based on the opinion of the Apex Court is that the subordinate court, before making a reference, is required to comply with the mandatory requirements of law and the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971 read with Contempt of Courts (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2001. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it lacks application of mind while holding that the petitioners have caused criminal contempt, as defined under section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971. Learned Judge before making a reference, was required to hold preliminary inquiry by issuing a show-cause notice accompanied with the copies of relevant documents, if any, to the contemnor and upon cause shown, if any, and after hearing them, should have written a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed. There is no mention of any particular newspaper report or reports through electronic media on the basis of which, learned court proceeded to hold at the first instance itself that the petitioners have caused criminal contempt of court. The notice issued consequent thereto also did not contain any material documents or reports that formed the basis on which, learned court directed the petitioners to show-cause. Thus, the impugned order fails to follow the procedure established by law. The notice issued consequent thereto also did not contain any material documents or reports that formed the basis on which, learned court directed the petitioners to show-cause. Thus, the impugned order fails to follow the procedure established by law. It also resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It appears that the impugned order and notices have been issued in routine and mechanical manner. The impugned order is therefore not in accordance with the procedure established by law and is also in violation of principles of natural justice. 17. Adverting to the second issue, this Court being the “Court of Record” and the highest judiciary authority in the State discharging its jurisdiction in loco parentis over the subordinate judiciary in the State, thought it proper to seek a report from the learned court on this subject matter. Learned court through its report dated 02.04.2018 contained in letter no. 182, submitted copies of four newspapers namely, (i) Prabhat Khabar, (ii) Dainik Jagaran and (iii) Hindustan dated 24.12.2017 and Dainik Bhaskar dated 04.01.2018. It refers to certain reports at page no. 13 in Prabhat Khabar, page no. 9 in Dainik Jagaran, page no. 10 in Hindustan and in front page of Dainik Bhaskar dated 04.01.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners and ASGI were allowed to inspect the report and the newspapers annexed thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that these newspaper reports do not contain any such statement which amounts to scandalizing the court or trying to lower down the authority of the Court or interfere with the administration of justice. Prabhat Khabar contains certain news item attributable to the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 202/2018 and Cr. M.P. No. 210/2018. However, it does not show any aspersion or allegation on the court or the Learned Judge. Statements at best can be said to be directed against a political party or political personality. One of the newspapers Dainik Bhaskar, referred to, is of 04.01.2018 which is after issuance of the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 and notice of the same date. Neither does the newspaper report contain any such offending statement, nor could it be made the basis for issuance of the impugned order. 18. As a matter of fact, there are no such statements attributable against any of the petitioners contained in the news item published in ‘Hindustan’ edition dated 24.12.2017. Neither does the newspaper report contain any such offending statement, nor could it be made the basis for issuance of the impugned order. 18. As a matter of fact, there are no such statements attributable against any of the petitioners contained in the news item published in ‘Hindustan’ edition dated 24.12.2017. Perusal of the said report would reveal that it refers to dismissal of the transfer application of one of the accused by this Court earlier. Statements attributed in the news edition ‘Prabhat Khabar’ to the two petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 202/2018 and Cr. M.P. No. 210/20189 indicate their ire against a political party and political person and at the same time, their intention to go in appeal before the High Court against the judgment of conviction. Newspaper reports are at best hearsay evidence, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty (Supra), para-25 and 26. Newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which, allegation of act can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report, cannot be treated as a proof of the facts reported therein. 19. Apparently, these reports at best could not be drawn in such category as would amount to criminal contempt. In any case, the impugned order completely fails to make reference to any such report, nor the impugned notice issued thereunder encloses any such material document or newspaper reports based upon which, petitioners were called upon to show-cause. Need for circumspection and restraint has been repeatedly cautioned by the Apex Court in the exercise of power to punish for contempt. It is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh (Supra), Apex Court at para-20 of the Report, quoted above, observed that of late, a perception is slowly gaining ground among public that sometimes, some Judges are showing over sensitiveness with a tendency to treat even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts and to command respect. But Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand respect by demonstration of power. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts and to command respect. But Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand respect by demonstration of power. Observation of the Chief Justice John Marshall of American Supreme Court have also been referred to where it was said that the power of judiciary lies, not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences, nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence and faith of the common man. The purpose of the power to punish for criminal contempt is to ensure that the faith and confidence of the public in administration of justice is not eroded. Such power, vested in the High Courts, carries with it great responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no room for complaints of ostentatious exercise of power. 20. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the impugned order and notice issued thereunder, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and facts and deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. They are accordingly quashed. Instant petitions are allowed in the aforesaid manner.