JUDGMENT 1. Affidavit on behalf of UT, Chandigarh has been filed. 2. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-Union of India, submits that needful has been done and a compliance report has been received from the said respondent. He further wishes to file a detailed affidavit and is allowed to do so. 3. Statements of respondents no.6 to 8, namely, Balwinder Singh Sekhon, Pardeep Sharma and Baljit Singh Marwaha have been recorded separately, in pursuance to the charge raised against them vide order dated 20.02.2023. 4. Compliance report on behalf of respondent no.5, by way of affidavit of Mandeep Singh Sidhu, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, who is also present in the Court, has been filed which is taken on record. Perusal of the aforesaid compliance report shows that respondents no.6 and 7 were arrested in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023. However, there is an admission in para no.19, that during policy custody, both the contemners had given media bytes to news channel and newspaper reporters in the Court premises at Ludhiana. It is also an admission that there is apparent lapse on the part of the police officials/officers on duty and a departmental inquiry has been initiated against SHO Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and explanation has been sought from the ACP Crime-1, Ludhiana and ACP West, Ludhiana regarding this aspect. 5. Accordingly, we direct the State of Punjab to file a status report, in the form of personal affidavit of the Director General of Police, Punjab, regarding the departmental proceedings which are being conducted against any such officials and that the same shall be finalized expeditiously. The status report shall also give an explanation as to how such offending videos, which are constantly being posted on social media platforms since the last six months in which derogatory remarks against the constitutional institutions and against a Judge of the Supreme Court and the Judges of this Court are being made on a regular basis, amounts to an offence under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, The Information and Technology Act, 2000 and other Special Acts or not. The affidavit will also give an explanation as to why any such proceedings were not initiated against the persons who were constantly uploading/posting such videos and why there is dereliction of duties on their behalf in this regard. The affidavit will also give an explanation as to why any such proceedings were not initiated against the persons who were constantly uploading/posting such videos and why there is dereliction of duties on their behalf in this regard. State shall also give details whether under which other provisions, it has the authority to detain people who indulge in such activities. The needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. 6. As per the report prepared by the Registrar (Computerization) of this Court, the offending material runs into 35 Gigabytes data and is having a play time of 10 to 12 hours. 7. Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.9-Facebook has stated that through its authorized company META, it has located the offending URLs/videos and deleted/blocked the same as per the list provided by the officers of this Court in pursuance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023. He further submitted that to delete such offending videos at all levels, the primary instrument which was used for uploading the material would be required so that the cleansing can be done at base level. Resultantly, Mr. Bali submits that necessary direction will have to be issued in this context to the private respondent nos.6 to 8. 8. On request of counsel for respondent no.9, it is also clarified that with regard to any such offending material, which is being identified and which is still available on the platforms and request is made subsequently by the Registrar Computerization of this Court, appropriate action will be taken on the same to ensure the earlier directions passed. 9. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no10-Youtube submits that the identity of the said respondent has undergone a change and he wishes to file appropriate application to place on record the correct description of respondent no.10 who will be in a position to own up the responsibility for deletion of all the uploaded URLs/videos in compliance of the order dated 20.02.2023. Mr. Chhibbar, on instructions, further submits that active steps are being taken and have been taken to remove all the offending material as per the orders of this Court dated 20.02.2023 and appropriate screening of all the material pertaining to respondents no.6 and 7 is going on. Mr. Chhibbar, on instructions, further submits that active steps are being taken and have been taken to remove all the offending material as per the orders of this Court dated 20.02.2023 and appropriate screening of all the material pertaining to respondents no.6 and 7 is going on. He further submits that the said respondents shall diligently comply with the order of this Court and if any further offending material is found and conveyed to them, active steps will be taken to remove all such material. 10. Mr. Rohit Khanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.11-Twitter, submits that all the offending URLs/videos were located and have been blocked. He also wishes to file appropriate application showing correct description of respondent no.11-Twitter. 11. All the three counsels on behalf of respondent nos.9 to 11 raised the same grievance regarding the reliance placed upon Swami Ramdev and another vs. Facebook, INC and others, 2019(263), Delhi Law Times 689, in the order dated 20.02.2023. 12. It is pointed out that the said matter is subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court itself and the only interim relief granted which has been granted is that the contempt proceedings will not be pursued. They accordingly submit that whatsoever compliance has been done, as per the interim relief, should not be treated as a precedent. They submit that they will file necessary affidavit highlighting whatsoever action has been taken, which is now being pointed out to this Court, before the next date of hearing. 13. It also came to our notice that respondent no.6 had apparently approximately 37000 subscribers on his private channel allegedly called as 'Balwinder Sekhon Speaks' which was on Youtube. Respondents no.9 to 11 will file specific affidavit(s) that on account of a large subscriber base of such users, whether any financial benefits accrue to such persons who creates such channel and upload videos and on account of advertisement being posted on such a channel, whether he started earning revenue. Respondent nos.9, 10 and 11, in their affidavit, shall also specify that how much of revenue or earnings, if any, were given to respondent no.6-Balwinder Singh Sekhon by way of monetization and whether any revenue has been generated in the account of said person's account. Respondent nos.9, 10 and 11, in their affidavit, shall also specify that how much of revenue or earnings, if any, were given to respondent no.6-Balwinder Singh Sekhon by way of monetization and whether any revenue has been generated in the account of said person's account. The said respondents shall also file affidavit(s) as to whether they received any complaint regarding such uploading/postings by any set of persons including from any State authorities who were aggrieved on the ground that such material, which was being posted was per se offensive. If any such representation was received, whether any action was taken on the same. The said respondents, in their affidavits, shall also give details of the redressal mechanism which has been put in place and how actively it has been responded by the said respondents on the complaints received from the citizens. 14. While taking refrence from Mr. Bali's suggestions, mobile phones of respondent no.6 and 7, which were seized by the Punjab Police, will be scrutinized by the Punjab Police and identify all the offending material pertaining to Court proceedings. 15. At this stage, Mr. Pardeep Sharma submits that whatever has happened, was an emotional outburst. He, however, was offered an opportunity but he declined to give any unconditional apology. 16. The statements of all the three private respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 were recorded separately and apparently and unwittingly, they had indicted each other for which we feel that once we have invoked Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the fact that the contempt was in the face of the Court under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 1971 Act'), there is enough judicial precedents that evidence will not have to be led for delaying the matter and for quick dispensation of justice in such like cases to ensure that the message goes home. Reliance can be placed upon observation of a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009(10) SCC 337 , in which there was reference made on account of a divergent view taken earlier. 17. Respondent no.8-Baljit Singh Marwaha has admitted that he conducted the interview on15.02.2023 in his office studio at 6.30 pm, after hearing had been conducted by this Court on the same day. 17. Respondent no.8-Baljit Singh Marwaha has admitted that he conducted the interview on15.02.2023 in his office studio at 6.30 pm, after hearing had been conducted by this Court on the same day. There is an admission that both the respondent nos.6 and 7 were being interviewed and the recording was done in his studio. His defence is that certain other persons were recording the interview separately who had accompanied respondent nos.6 and 7. The video was never uploaded on Scroll Punjab channel as there was an obligation to edit the same and scrutinize its contents and eventually on account of the aforesaid fact, the same was never uploaded on their channel. It is further being stated that uploading was done at an independent level by respondent nos.6 and 7 without his permission and he only came to know about the same when he received summons from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. 18. Respondent no.6-Balwinder Singh Sekhon did not admit the contents of both the videos/transcripts and rather got personal with the Court when his plea of defence was being recorded and his conduct was derogatory in nature. On the other hand, respondent no.7 clearly admitted his presence in both the offending videos Annexure 'A' & 'C' and transcripts 'B' and 'D'. For some of the derogatory remarks, he shifted the onus to respondent no.6-Balwinder Singh Sekhon. 19. In such circumstances, since we have ourselves seen the videos and the respondents are present in the Court and there is no dispute regarding the identity of the persons involved in the videos and the transcripts of the said videos are per se derogatory, malicious, libelous and against the constitutional authorities and this institution in principle. 20. It is further not disputed that the said videos were featuring on the platforms of respondents no.9 to 11, the intermediaries, and apparently, as noticed above, there were almost 37000 subscribers and the viewers at this point is uncertain, which would be manifold. 21. Thus mud-slinging by way of open publication and representation of such malicious material being circulated not only at the national but international level, amounts to inciting people at large against the Rule of Law and against one of the basic wing of the democratic set up under the Constitution of India consisting of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. 21. Thus mud-slinging by way of open publication and representation of such malicious material being circulated not only at the national but international level, amounts to inciting people at large against the Rule of Law and against one of the basic wing of the democratic set up under the Constitution of India consisting of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Thus, it gives us no reason to postpone the proceedings for requiring any trial. 22. Thus, in view of the above, by invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India, both the respondent nos.6 and 7, namely, Balwinder Singh Sekhon and Pardeep Sharma are held guilty of the charge issued against them vide order dated 20.02.2023 for 'Criminal Contempt' as defined under Section 2(c)(i) to (iii) of the 1971 Act, which is in the face of this Court under Section 14 of the 1971 Act and punishable under Section 12 of the 1971 Act. 23. Keeping in view the fact that contempt was committed, for which respondent nos.6 and 7 have no remorse, both the contemners are convicted and sentenced for a period six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/- each. They shall undergo the aforesaid sentence at Model Jail, Burail, UT, Chandigarh. 24. Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh is directed to ensure compliance of this order in this regard. 25. At the time, the sentence was announced, respondent no.6-Balwinder Singh Sekhon raised slogans 'Judicial Gundagardi Murdabad' in the open Court and further compounded the contempt and for that, we are not in a position to give a lesser sentence than has been awarded. 26. Detailed order/judgment would follow which will be supplied to the contemners through the Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, UT, Chandigarh for taking any rederessal measures by them. 27. Now to come up on 04.05.2023 for filing necessary affidavits, as noticed above, including that of respondent no.8. 28. A copy of this order, duly attested by the Special Secretary attached with this Court, be supplied to both the convicted persons, Advocate General, Punjab and Senior Standing Counsel for UT Chandigarh for compliance. G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - To quote the words of Lord Denning, as long comments fully and faithfully are made on what is happening in the Court of Justice would be a proper criticism which the Court should not resent and it is the freedom of speech itself. G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - To quote the words of Lord Denning, as long comments fully and faithfully are made on what is happening in the Court of Justice would be a proper criticism which the Court should not resent and it is the freedom of speech itself. However silence is not an option when things are ill done to use the contempt jurisdiction to uphold your own dignity. Relevant quote reads as under: "Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or cover the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters if public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a Court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticize us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done." 2. In Re: Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375 , a famous author was held guilty of contempt by the Apex Court by noting that she had drifted away from her path of art and literature and rendered herself to the dock of the Court. The cloak of freedom of speech and expression and the dignity of the Court was summarized as under: 'Rule of Law' is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. The cloak of freedom of speech and expression and the dignity of the Court was summarized as under: 'Rule of Law' is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no-one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courts that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century of independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without. The need of the time is of restoring confidence amongst the people for the independence of judiciary. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the courts of justice, which the people possess, cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be. In In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner) [ AIR 1995 SC 2348 ] this Court reiterated the position of law relating to the powers of contempt and opined that the judiciary is not only the guardian of the rule of law and third pillar but in fact the central pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very corner-stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded." The factual matrix: 3. It is a matter of record that hearing in CWP-20359-2013 titled Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State of Punjab was fixed for 27.01.2023 before this Court. Apparently, on 26.01.2023 (Republic Day) a video of 17.35 minute was circulated wherein malicious and derogatory allegations were made pertaining to various judicial proceedings which were conducted by other Hon'ble Judges of this Court. Reference was made to more than 10 Judges of this Court against whom scandalous statements were made and one sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The unsubstantiated allegations were being leveled regarding the manner in which the judicial proceedings were being conducted by the Judges of this Court and how they might be conducted and after having been conducted as to how they should have been conducted. Allegations of financial misdemeanour for passing of orders and Judges facing political pressure was the run of the mill conversation in the video. Suggestion had also been given to this Bench as to how to proceed with this matter which was coming up on the next day and which was brought to our notice subsequently. Allegations of financial misdemeanour for passing of orders and Judges facing political pressure was the run of the mill conversation in the video. Suggestion had also been given to this Bench as to how to proceed with this matter which was coming up on the next day and which was brought to our notice subsequently. The said publication on social media on the platform of You-Tube on the channel of 'Balwinder Sekhon Speaks' promoted by Balwinder Singh Sekhon (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.6') was felt to be not only scandalous and intending to scandalize but also lowering the authority of this Court and amounted to criminal contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 1971 Act') We also felt it prejudiced and caused interference and that it intended to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings was crystal clear. 4. The matter at that point of time was postponed for 15.02.2023. Two days prior to that respondent No.6 again had held a press conference regarding the said proceedings and again opined on the matter which was sub-judice and therefore by noticing that it was not an isolated incident and the fact that he had been dismissed on a similar charge of making unpleasant remarks against the Government through social media being a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a member of the disciplined Force, we had issued notice of 'Criminal Contempt' under Section 15 of the 1971 Act when he came present watching the proceedings on 15.02.2023, though he is not a party to the said proceedings. At that point of time, he had accepted the said notice. It was directed that the transcript of the video proceedings would be supplied to him during the course of the day and the matter was then listed for 28.03.2023, on the same day, when the main matter was being heard. 5. However, the matter did not stop there. Since Pardeep Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.7') was also present in Court, he got up to defend the issuance of the contempt notice to respondent No.6 and questioned the authority of this Court as to how notice was being issued to him. 5. However, the matter did not stop there. Since Pardeep Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.7') was also present in Court, he got up to defend the issuance of the contempt notice to respondent No.6 and questioned the authority of this Court as to how notice was being issued to him. He was informed at that point of time that he was a non-entity and if he wishes to file any application to interfere he could do so but he continued to insist that he should be heard which this Bench did not feel necessary and resultantly, he had to be marshaled out with the help of the police. The matter did not stop there and both the respondent No.6 & 7 then chose to air themselves in open public at the main entrance of the Court and launched a vicious tirade on the proceedings which had been conducted in the main case. Various comments were made regarding how the matter had been dealt and which is pertaining to a drugs issue in the State of Punjab being investigated and monitored by this Court since the year 2013 by successive Bench's. Certain reports which had been called for had not been opened and therefore, it was alleged that the Judges did not have the guts to open the reports and respondent No.7 should be appointed as Nodel Officer so that he could monitor the opening up of the sealed reports. Respondent No.7 proudly stated that the contempt notice should also be issued to him and why it had only been issued to respondent No.6. Disparging remarks to one of us on the aspect of parentage also and also allegations that because 2 senior police officials were involved and therefore, the Bench was avoiding to open the reports and that it was wetting its pants to open the envelopes and also that the Judges were leashed by a certain set of people. Apparently, this was uploaded on the channel of respondent No.6 on the same evening after Court proceedings. The transcript of the video (Annexure B) reads as under: 'Transcript of 2:29 minute video containing interview of Pardeep Sharma and Balwinder Singh Sekhon as was uploaded on youtube channel Balwinder Sekhon speaks on 15th February 2023. My Name is Pardeep Sharma. Apparently, this was uploaded on the channel of respondent No.6 on the same evening after Court proceedings. The transcript of the video (Annexure B) reads as under: 'Transcript of 2:29 minute video containing interview of Pardeep Sharma and Balwinder Singh Sekhon as was uploaded on youtube channel Balwinder Sekhon speaks on 15th February 2023. My Name is Pardeep Sharma. Today I have come to High Court in connection with a drugs case in which SIT was constituted by a Judge who was a Honourable Justice here (named therein, but withheld by us), in the year 2013. In the year 2017 sealed envelopes containing reports were submitted. From 2017 to 2023, many benches have changed over, but no judge has daring to open the said envelopes. Standing on this Public entry of High Court, I swear on oath and I am ready to give an affidavit, I will give an affidavit to Chief Justice (named therein, but withheld by us) just now. I have written 10 e-mails to him that appoint me as Nodal Officer and I shall open the envelopes. You may sent me to Jail for six years. In Ludhiana, 30 Lakhs children have expired due to drugs. This is no way. Today I have appeared before Justice Sandhawalia in person. He said he does not want to listen to me saying that you come through proper channel. With folded hands I requested him that you have put photograph of Mahatama Gandhi, who is father of nation, then at least listen me. He said No No we don't want to listen you. I said why you don't want to listen me? They have issued Contempt notice to Shekhon. I said Issue such notice to me also. What is the problem? Just do it. Interviewer: What notice has been issued to him? Pardeep: That you have convened a conference and had passed scandalous remarks. I myself say that Judges should improve their conduct. They should improve their working. Don't these Judges require that the envelopes should be opened? Interviewer: Are they not able to open the envelopes? Pardeep: Father of Sandhawalia Sahib was also a Judge here. He is been an Advocate here. He is born and brought up in this city. I have seen him growing in this city. I know him and his family. Don't these Judges require that the envelopes should be opened? Interviewer: Are they not able to open the envelopes? Pardeep: Father of Sandhawalia Sahib was also a Judge here. He is been an Advocate here. He is born and brought up in this city. I have seen him growing in this city. I know him and his family. I am saying it openly and on your channel that I know his whole family. Sandhawalia sahib is inconsiderate (abusive content not being reproduced). Interviewer: Right sir. Thank you. Interviewer to Sekhon: In which Court you appeared today. Sekhon: I am Citizen. I am the whistle blower. I am the person who has taken them to task. There is name of two police officials (named therein, but withheld by us) and this fact is hurting them all. The pants of My Lords are getting wet in opening of the envelopes. Interviewer: The drug case which is known to be 6000 Crores has not been opened? Sekhon: It is not just 6000 crores but is much more. They have not opened the case because they have not been ordered to do so by their masters. The persons who have put leashes in the neck of these My Lords, have not directed them to open the evelopes." 6. Apparently, this was uploaded on the channel of respondent No.6 on the same evening after Court proceedings. The downloaded version is also appended as Annexure A of the file as a CD by the officials of this Court. 7. The matter however did not stop there and both of them proceeded to the studio of respondent No.8 who is running a channel namely 'Scroll Punjab'. A conference was addressed regarding the proceedings which had happened in Court on the said date and the said video running into 27.35 minutes which was also downloaded and is appended as Annexure C whereas the written transcript is Annexure D. The contents of the said video are so damaging that we do not wish to reproduce all of them wherein it was stated that the Court has been made a public limited company and permission of passes are required to enter and they have made the judiciary a 'brothel'. Proudly it was stated that the notice of Criminal Contempt No.1 of 2023 was not served upon respondent No.6 and the Judges are spineless and the High Court was running a shop of judicial hooliganism. A gauntlet was thrown that when respondent No.7 had stood up and asked that he should be sent to jail, the Bench had started perspiring on account of the fact that names of senior police officials were figuring in the reports. Further the two pretended as if they were unknown to each other and the fact that the Judges were not worth a penny and they had talked about the misdeeds of 10-12 Judges. Similarly, disparaging remarks were also made regarding the Head of the Institution herein and also regarding a sitting Supreme Court Judge and also at least 2 other Judges. Some portions of which are reproduced which are not so malicious as under: 'Do you think that taking the names by you have caused an irritation to them? Yes, I think so. Instead of appreciating us that we have taken the truth out, they are asking how there you are pondering over the matter when the same is pending before us. I say that you have issued contempt notice 'where is your that respect'. The people will treat you in a way in coming times that you will remember for long. I while standing in the court have dared to ask to arrest me. I admit what I have said. Why are you not arresting me? They are spineless and they were neither aware that I was present in the court nor I was aware that this would happen. Sorry, I was not prepared as I was not expecting that it would happen. Now, I am prepared. Now, they have made me a party so, they have to call me. Today, they were to give me notice, but in a hurry they called the martials as I have started telling the truth. They failed to serve the notice upon me. Next time, I will go to take the notice but I will not reply because they have no reputation. You have made the courts like brothels so there is no need to give reply to your notices. You are the servants and we are the masters so a servant has no courage to service notice upon the master. Next time, I will go to take the notice but I will not reply because they have no reputation. You have made the courts like brothels so there is no need to give reply to your notices. You are the servants and we are the masters so a servant has no courage to service notice upon the master. We will do and now we have caught this shop named High Court who are judicial hooligans. Today, Mr. Pardeep is present and we have raised the slogan 'Judicial Gundas Murdabad'. On the name of Chief Justice, we challenged that if you have any shame then, come forward and face us. This hooliganism is not new but has started in a more aggravated manner. Now, it is turn of High Court to come under the blade of saw as these peoples have sat over the drug report for the last 6 years. On next date, I will march them out (jaloos nikalunga). I challenge Sandhawalia judge not to leave the field as you have born in a Jatt family. I know many things about Sandhawlia. There are good judges but he is not so. I earlier said during a conference that we have received reports of rape against you. In the coming time, I will bring many things forward. But, whatever happened today, is good for Punjab. I was waiting for the last 6-8 months to be called at such place so that I should speak the facts. Today, neither me nor he was prepared. Now, if he has the courage, he should not leave the field. I will come prepared next time, march him out and a history will be written. We have no fear as at the maximum they can register cases and send us to jail. I am not afraid of getting cases registered against me as I have been playing with cases for long. Even today, I told him in court to send me to jail on which he got presperating. Then Pardeep Kumar stood up in the court and brought him to the dock. Thereafter, we were taken up by the martials. Now next things would be told by Mr.Pardeep. Baljeet Marwaha to Pardeep Since you have the horoscope of all the Judges, so how do you see the today's incident? Then Pardeep Kumar stood up in the court and brought him to the dock. Thereafter, we were taken up by the martials. Now next things would be told by Mr.Pardeep. Baljeet Marwaha to Pardeep Since you have the horoscope of all the Judges, so how do you see the today's incident? Today, I went to High Court for welfare of masses to save Punjab and its children from drugs. I was not aware that Balwinder was there (at this, Balwinder Singh Sekhon told that he was also not aware about this). I went there on my own identity. Even the Judge Saab Sandhawalia was not knowing we both were there. When the Judge asked where is Balwinder Singh Sekhon, he was standing behind me. Then he came forward. You were not involved in any case then, why your name was called in that case? Ans. By (Balwinder Singh Sekhon) Actually they were prepared for issuing me contempt notice because in the past, we spoke against Judges. Once, myself and Pardeep sat together and read misdeeds of 10-12 Judges. The reports circulated without their signs. They are not even worth penny and as such we talked against them. xxxx xxxx Do you think, since there is no time limit in deciding the cases in judiciary, so, this thing is used as a weapon to suppress the cases? They have made a fashion of reserving the judgments. Why the judgment should be reserved. You may get the judgments written after two months but you should announce it immediately. You do so because you have to buy the time, you have to bargain. There are cases which have been pending for the last 10-12 years and have not been dictated. xxxx xxxx Pardeep: 30 lakh children have lost their lives to drugs. I pray to the Chief Justice that he along with me may take a tour in State of Punjab to see the actual state of affairs. I would not let you to reach Jabalpur. I will make you sit along with me in my car and take you for a tour of Punjab. The menace of drugs have also reached Madhya Pradesh and drug smuggling to Madhya Pradesh has also started. You will also become a grandparent tomorrow and your grand-children may also get engaged in drugs. I will make you sit along with me in my car and take you for a tour of Punjab. The menace of drugs have also reached Madhya Pradesh and drug smuggling to Madhya Pradesh has also started. You will also become a grandparent tomorrow and your grand-children may also get engaged in drugs. It shall be a social cause for you if you call for explanation of Sandhawalia. I am openly challenging you Mr.Sandhawalia before the camera that I shall submit an affidavit against you to Chief Justice of India (named therein, but deleted by us) in Supreme Court that you fail to discharge your duty as a Judicial officer. You are not a competent man. You did not listen me. Why? You do not have tolerance to hear. Today, 400 people were standing outside the High Court. Sekhon: I want to make an appeal to all the Punjabi's and to all drug-affected families that they should visit High Court on the next date of hearing of the drug case so that the dead bodies of all these (abusive language) be taken to the cremation ground so that they start delivering justice. I have a invitation to all the Punjabi's. Today, we all have got an opportunity as one of the Judge has come to our task. I must say that today he has been taken to task by us. I used to pray to the almighty for this opportunity of receiving call from the court and speaking openly as to what all things can be spoken against you. Pardeep: I have openly and in loud voice spoken before the court of Chief Justice. There was security and I openly called the Chief Justice to come present and discuss with us, but no one came present. xxxx xxxx Shekhon: We have poured out venom which was inside us. These dialogue can be extended for hours together. Pardeep: I do not want my photograph in the Court. Nor I want to shave my hair. Nor I want to color my hair. I don't want all these. You remove the photograph of Mahatama Gandhi from all institutions. Please. This is my request. Shekhon: After this episode, High Courts shall be a target. We will send todays episode also. We will be derogatory and will sharpen our words in future. We will share 15-20 videos and share together. I don't want all these. You remove the photograph of Mahatama Gandhi from all institutions. Please. This is my request. Shekhon: After this episode, High Courts shall be a target. We will send todays episode also. We will be derogatory and will sharpen our words in future. We will share 15-20 videos and share together. Pardeep: Sandhawalia Sahib, I have your number. I will send you also. I have your number. You all may share such videos amongst yourself. Sekhon: This voice shall progagate in big manner. In the time to come, you all share endure such things which you might not have dreamed of. Marwaha: Started speaking, but after three words the video ends." 8. The said video was apparently circulated on the channel of respondent No.6. Resultantly, we were forced to issue notice of the charge of contempt on 20.02.2023. Resultantly, keeping in view the interests of the Institution and the openness with which the said respondent Nos.6 & 7 were propagating these loose talk which was on the face of it defamatory it would be clear from the reading of the transcript and also partly reproduced above, we invoked our powers under Section 14(4) of the 1971 Act as we felt that this methodology of putting forth such negative views practically amount to inciting the general public and definitely fell within the scope of criminal contempt which was by way of visible representations openly scandalizing and lowering the authority of this Court and interfering with the course of judicial proceedings which were pending before us and therefore, the administration of justice was being affected. 9. It is another matter that these offending videos do not only pertain to our Court but also to other Courts and are circulated in the same manner in which the proceedings are held whenever any contentious matter is listed before this Court. Interviews are given as to how proceedings are to be conducted and suggestions are put-forth for reasons best known to the two respondents who have apparently become habitual blackmailers and trying to make the best of the situation wherein Information Technology has been advanced to this level wherein they can get instant audience running into thousands which is lapped up willingly. Since, it was recurring and continuous contempt, accordingly, we directed that the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana shall arrest them immediately and produce them before this Court. Since, it was recurring and continuous contempt, accordingly, we directed that the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana shall arrest them immediately and produce them before this Court. However, since we had directed that they should be served through the concerned CJM which happens to be at Ludhiana and they had to be sent to judicial custody before they can be produced here. On 20.02.2023, the needful was done by the evening as we have now been informed. 10. We also directed removing of all such offending materials on all such platforms and issued various other directions keeping in mind the judicial precedents and the statutory provisions which are noticed accordingly in the order dated 20.02.2023. 11. They further showed their true colours by holding another interview when being produced in Court for being remanded to judicial custody for which the State of Punjab has been directed to take necessary redressal steps. Their accomplices raised slogans in the judicial complex at Ludhiana and the transcript of which had been downloaded by the officials of this Court which runs into 8.18 minutes which was again uploaded on You-Tube on respondent No.6's channel since our directions for downloading and blocking had not been implemented by then. The said video and transcript are now marked as Annexures E & F which reads as under: 'TRANSCRIPT OF 8.18 MINUTES VIDEO UPLOADED ON YOUTUBE CHANNEL NAMELY BALWINDER SEKHON SPEAKS ON 22.02.2023 SEKHON: My family is with me. Let them come. My daughter and my wife are present here. Pardeep is also here. I want to address on 2-3 issues. Pardeep Ji please come near me. Looking into the circumstances, which have transpired. Further, looking into the arguments which have been addressed in the Court, we are not convicts and the order of the High Court is wrongly being got implemented through the Senior Officers of the Police. Similarly, High Court is wrongly getting its order implemented from its judicial officer. No problem that High Court has passed these orders and have sent us to custody. But, I want to give a message to the people of Punjab, that my voice was on behalf of people of Punjab. I raised my voice just to get the sealed reports in drug cases opened because of which I am being sent to jail today. This is disregard to the people of Punjab. But, I want to give a message to the people of Punjab, that my voice was on behalf of people of Punjab. I raised my voice just to get the sealed reports in drug cases opened because of which I am being sent to jail today. This is disregard to the people of Punjab. This is contempt notice to the people of Punjab. People of Punjab should rise and themselves should see what next to be done. There is no next date but we shall be produced before the Court on 24th. You already know what questions I would raise before the Judge and I would do that. But people of Punjab should realize that time is right to seek answer to 30 lakhs people of Punjab who have expired. I appeal that people of Punjab should reach t the doors of High Court on 24th to answer the contempt issued upon them. Secondly, if anyone can save this state, then it is only the MLAs because people of this region have already admitted themselves in mortuaries. Only dead bodies are roaming around. The intellectuals of Punjab are shamelessly maintaining gross silence. (2.00) If they do not come forward today and the press does not play its role, then they should be boycotted. They are also equivalently responsible for these circumstances in the state in the like manner as this organ of the state is doing against us. Punjab can only be saved by the Non-resident Indians (NRIs) and there is no one in the state of Punjab who can put life in these dead bodies. My next appeal is to the NRI people. I have been often offered for help. Today, I am telling to them that time is ripe for awakening. NRIs should come forward. We do not need money from NRIs. We need your supervision. You visit this place and show that you are ready for fight. Thirdly, I state that this is my daughter. I have called her day before yesterday in the evening. I was not knowing that this day would come, but I was definitely preparing myself for 28th. As earlier I have declared that this is a land of Gurus and Peers and I am not a big man and I do not compare myself with anybody. I have called her day before yesterday in the evening. I was not knowing that this day would come, but I was definitely preparing myself for 28th. As earlier I have declared that this is a land of Gurus and Peers and I am not a big man and I do not compare myself with anybody. But I hereby state that my voice will only be stopped if four dead bodies are taken out from my home. After today, till the time I would be in the jail, my daughter Sukhpreet Sekhon will voyage my voice further. We will not obtain bail and after 24th also, we will raise questions and they would have to send me to jail. We will apply for bail only on the day when the envelopes in the drug case will be opened. We do not want anything less than opening of envelopes in drug case. Our further struggle will continue as it is. Court has in a manner defamed people of Punjab. Question by a Journalist: Is there any programme on 24th at Amb Sahab at 10:30 AM? SEKHON: My telephones are with the Police and they do not allow me to talk but I came to know from my friends that they have organized a programme at Amb Sahab Gurudwara, Mohli on 24th February. All people will gather there. My daughter is young in age and she does not know anything about this but my daughter knows how to address them in English although my language is not liked by them. She knows how to communicate in English and will give a clear message. Our message would be same but we will convey the same in English language also. I must tell that after my daughter I have a younger son also. If I would be lodged in jail and converted to a dead body then I have a wife also. They would have to pull four dead bodies out of my home and anything less than this would not serve their purpose. Many people started simultaneously at the same time and thereafter, slogans were raised 'Judicial Gunday Murdabad' many times. Slogans were also raised in hindi that 'High Court kin Gunda Gardi nahi chalegi' 'Gunda Gardi band karo'. Question by a Journalist to Pardeep Sharma: Against whom are you fighting? Many people started simultaneously at the same time and thereafter, slogans were raised 'Judicial Gunday Murdabad' many times. Slogans were also raised in hindi that 'High Court kin Gunda Gardi nahi chalegi' 'Gunda Gardi band karo'. Question by a Journalist to Pardeep Sharma: Against whom are you fighting? PARDEEP SHARMA: In my hand, I have Part-I of Rules of High Court pertaining to Contempt of Court of 1974. In these rules, there is no provision/subject matter relating to detention. If a person commits contempt, he shall simply appear before the court and there are provisions for onsite bail by the Court. Justice Sandhawalia who has detained us for two days is totally illegal and unconstitutional. In the history of High Court and in my life time, I have heard the word of Virtual panchayat for the first time. SEKHON: This Virtual panchayat was convened between the judicial gundas. They have gathered together for this purpose. Police officer intervenes and stops the press conference. SEKHON: I request the people of Punjab to come forward against this judicial Gunda Gardi on 24th. Above slogans continued several times and all the parties came out of the court building. SEKHON: I again appeal that people of Punjab should gather and protest against High Court on 24th and give them a message that they are responsible for loss of life of 30 lakh people on account of drugs. The lower courts are in the service of the High Court. The lower courts might intend to do something good but they do not have directions from High Court. Today, the Judge who has sent me to custody was not willing to do so, but with a heavy heart, he has taken this decision to send me to jail because gundas are sitting in the high court. It is their directive. These gundas will be answerd in the manner they would remember for lifetime. Outside, Court building. SEKHON: Today, once again Justice has been succumbed to death. These police officers are on duty and are helpless but we cannot be detained in custody. Slogans 'Balwinder Sekhon Zindabad Zindabad" 12. Apparently, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 seem to have some foreign connection to the extent that either they have some Green card on account of their children settled abroad and therefore, have an association with Non-Resident Indians (NRI). These police officers are on duty and are helpless but we cannot be detained in custody. Slogans 'Balwinder Sekhon Zindabad Zindabad" 12. Apparently, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 seem to have some foreign connection to the extent that either they have some Green card on account of their children settled abroad and therefore, have an association with Non-Resident Indians (NRI). Therefore, propagating themselves as leaders, it was further stated that only the NRI's could save Punjab and they should come forward and with a safeguard that they themselves did not need money for it. We have serious doubt about their holistic projections which we have also noticed in our order passed on 24.02.2023. We have noticed that respondent No.6 has a subscriber base itself of more than 36,000 persons and we have also asked the intermediary platforms as to how much he is earning out of the said sponsorship by way of monetization and whether any revenue has been generated into the account of the said person as it is well known that advertisements are floated on the video channels uploaded by persons who have large fan following. The said set of persons apparently are beneficiaries of this system which as noticed willingly has been put to use using the benefit of information and technology. We are of the firm opinion that not only funds are coming from abroad on account of the nuisance value of these videos which are sustaining and had emboldened these respondents to go to this extreme step under this misconception that they can scare anyone by holding out that they could blackmail anyone by posting derogatory videos. As per the report prepared by the Registrar (Computerization) of this Court, the offending material pertaining to Court proceedings runs into 35 gigabytes data have a run time of 10-12 hours which has been uploaded on various platforms which has been identified till now and ordered to be blocked. 13. So much so even the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Punjab & Haryana Bar Association have been forced to pass resolutions against these two respondents which can be summed up in a phrase 'Better late than never'. 13. So much so even the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Punjab & Haryana Bar Association have been forced to pass resolutions against these two respondents which can be summed up in a phrase 'Better late than never'. The statutory and the elected body of the Bar Council passed these resolution on 20.02.2023 disassociating itself from these utterances of these two persons and noticing that freedom of speech though important cannot be used to maliciously interfere with the administration of justice and was leading to the destruction to the same and does not come within the ambit of fair criticism. The said resolution dated 20.02.2023 reads as under: 'Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana Law Bhawan Dakshin Marg, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh-160036, website. www.beph.co.in Ref.No. 10059 Date 20.02.2023 Open Letter to the General Public While visiting Court complexes one would always notice lawyers and clerks bowing their heads while entering inside the Courtroom, and existing in the same manner. The temple of justice as we enter inside, is presided by the chosen one who is the same to foe and friend and also in honour and dishonor, who is the same in cold and heat, in pleasure and pain, who is free from attachment, to whom censure and praise are equal, who is silent-uncomplaining-content with anything, homeless, steady minded, full of devotion and acts without fear and favour- on the road to render justice. This is the respect judges command, not through their position but due to strong characters built over decades of hard work and integrity. Biblical narratives from Exodus 18:13-26 to Hindu philosophy beautifully compare a judge with a flower which would never wither and remains ever fresh. Lord Krishna's 'Jagadaddhara Na' saves the Universe and ensures that it gets into the right path. In Gurbani words Niyaye, Niyan, Tapavas, Adal, Sach, Dharam and many others have been used for justice. Our Judges becoming a judge is a call of the conscience, who live by the principle of righteousness and dharma. The live of judges are governed by the strict code of 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. Many a times, while maliciously using tech media platforms through channels like Balwinder Singh speaks, Main Punjabi Manch (NGO), Scroll Punjab TV etc some persons have tried to scandalise Courts to suit their own convenience. The live of judges are governed by the strict code of 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. Many a times, while maliciously using tech media platforms through channels like Balwinder Singh speaks, Main Punjabi Manch (NGO), Scroll Punjab TV etc some persons have tried to scandalise Courts to suit their own convenience. While asserting their rights and cloaking themselves as whistleblowers, such men, with own set agenda, have crossed the Lakshman Rekha at various occasions. On the road to truth and fairness, commitment to responsible journalism is one of the most important facets. Allowing media platforms to be used by such persons to cast egregious aspersions on Courts and its judges and using invective descriptive taglines is nothing short of subversion. On a daily basis, we see judges granting indulgence in hundreds of case, asserting social impact of important issues concerning the general public and protecting the precious constitutional rights of the citizenry. No one can be allowed to undermine the Court's authority and try to devalue the public confidence in the administration of justice to suit own agendas. Courts have always been open to public observation and fair legitimate criticism. Judges have traditionally encouraged the open exchange of ideas and critiques regarding the legal system, as long as the objections do not jeopardize or obstruct the administration of justice. Free speech is important but cannot be used to maliciously interfere with the administration of justice and will not come within the ambit of fair criticism. Although the magnanimity of the Courts need no defence, and while men like Balwinder Singh Sekhon and Pardeep Sharma meet their own fate as law takes its own course, the Council cannot be a mute spectator as Judges suffer in silence as they cannot respond publicly to such outlandish allegations by appearing on public forums. We need to be wary of such people who conveniently malign institutions of high repute for their own self interests. Sd/- Suvir Sidhu Chairman 14. We need to be wary of such people who conveniently malign institutions of high repute for their own self interests. Sd/- Suvir Sidhu Chairman 14. Similarly, elected Bar Association of this Court which is also having 10,000 Members strong body also passed its resolution on 21.02.2023, which reads as under: 'PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION (REGD.) PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, SECTOR-1, CHANDIGARH-160001 (INDIA) Ref.No.652/2023/HCBA Dated 21.02.2023 RESOLUTION The meeting of the Executive Committee was called today i.e. 21.02.2023, where upon the issue with respect to Obstruction of Administration of Justice, Scandalization of the Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and Lawyers as well as lowering the dignity of the entire Judicial system by Balwinder Singh Sekhon, Pardeep Sharma and Baljeet Marwaha through social media, You Tube Channel and other news channels available on the internet was discussed. Although the Hon'ble Court has already issued a criminal contempt against the abovesaid persons but still keeping in mind the impeccable credibility of Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court which cannot be permitted to be eroded or impinged by individuals as there is fine line between freedom of speech & expression and defamation as such, it has been unanimously resolved by the Executive Committee that the unconstitutional, scandalous, unscrupulous social media campaign which lowers the dignity of the entire judicial system and the attack on justice delivery system is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated. The Bar Association is standing against the unlawful behavior and would take steps to ensure that the dignity of the legal profession is kept intact. Nobody was and should be allowed to make mokery of the judicial system by casting personal remarks against the Hon'ble Judges and Lawyers. The Bar Association strongly condemns the uncalled and illegal conduct of the above stated persons. Sd/- Sd/- G.B.S.DHILLON DINESH KUMAR JANGRA Sd/- Sd/- JASMEET SINGH BHATIA NIMARTA KAUR (Ms.) Sd/- BALJEET BENIWAL" 15. The interest of the Institution is always of paramount consideration. We as Judges, have taken our Oath that we have to bear true faith and alligance to the Constitution of India by the law established and the same is to be done without fear or favour, affection or ill will and to uphold the Constitution and its laws to the best of our ability, knowledge and judgments while performing our duties. The poem of Rabindra Nath Tagore comes to our mind which is known as Gitanjali-35 which reads as under: 'Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.' 16. It is unfortunate that the private respondents who we have gone on to convict somehow by resorting to these diabolical methodology of pasting such videos about the Constitutional Authorities being the judiciary as provided in Chapter-V of the Constitution of India have maligned it to the maximum to such extent that even the Courts at District Level which are provided for under Chapter-VI, would be badly affected and demoralized as a matter of routine. The High Court's Head is to be held high and the citizens of this country have to walk into the heavens of freedom but an attempt has been made to interfere in the administration of justice by such characters who have in their devious method for making money have committed various offences which would come under the provisions of IPC also, which we have asked respondent No.5 to look into. 17. When the said respondents were produced in Court, their statements were recorded separately along with the statement of respondent No.8. Their statements read as under: 'CROCP No.2 of 2023 Court on its own motion vs. UOI and others Statement of respondent No.8, Baljit Singh Marwaha, s/o Lt. Sardar Amarjit Singh, Aged 42 years, R/o H.No.326, Ward No.4, Phase-I, Village Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Office Address SCO 58, Sector 34, Chandigarh Adhar Card No.960699025256 Q No.1 Do you want the assistance of a free legal aid counsel? Ans. I be provided a legal aid counsel. My statement may be recorded as under:- It is true that I conducted an interview on 15.02.2023 at 66.30 p.m. in I was the compere at my office studio at SCO 58, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Ans. I be provided a legal aid counsel. My statement may be recorded as under:- It is true that I conducted an interview on 15.02.2023 at 66.30 p.m. in I was the compere at my office studio at SCO 58, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The persons who were being interviewed were Mr.Balwinder Singh Sekhon, Ex.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab and Mr.Pardeep Sharma, alleged Legal Expert. I do not know whether he holds any degree in law. This is the first interview which I had conducted on this issue. The interview was being recorded and it was not live and it was not telecasted and was not on air. While recording was being done in the studio, some of the persons who were accompanying were recording the interview separately. After the interview was over, we were under an obligation to edit the same and scrutinized the contents, which we did so. Eventually, we decided not to upload the video on our channel namely Scroll Punjab. The uploading was taken at an independent level by respondent Nos.6 and 7 without my permission. I only came to know when I received summons issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate through the police authorities regarding this fact. Till now, I have made no effort that this video recording (Annexure C), transcript of which is Annexure D, should be removed. I do not want to say anything more. I will file a proper affidavit giving these details. RO & AC Sd/- 24.02.2023 CROCP No.2 of 2023 Court on its own motion vs. UOI and others Statement of respondent No.6, Balwinder Sikngh Sekhon, R/o Flat No.19, G.F., Pink Flats, Rajguru Nagar, FZR Road, Ludhiana Q No.1 Do you want the assistance of a free legal aid counsel? Ans. I be provided a legal aid counsel. My statement may be recorded as under:- I have received the contempt notice which was issued in CROCP No.1 of 2023 when I was present in Court on 15.02.2023 but did not return to accept the same along with the relevant Annexures in the form of CD and transcript. Being a citizen of India, I have a right of freedom of speech. I plead not guilty and I wish to lead defence. Being a citizen of India, I have a right of freedom of speech. I plead not guilty and I wish to lead defence. I do not admit the contents of the transcript which is contained in video Annexures A and C followed by the transcript Annexures B & D which have been duly supplied to me through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana as per order dated 20.02.2023. I do not want to say anything more. I will file a proper affidavit giving these details. The contemner has tried to get personal with the Court and said that he is not being heard which is derogatory and offensive and has stated that the truth always hurts. RO & AC Sd/- 24.02.2023 CROCP No.2 of 2023 Court on its own motion vs. UOI and others Statement of respondent No.7, Pardeep Sharma S/o Late Baldev Krishan Sharma, R/o H.No.3032, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh My statement may be recorded as under:- I admit my presence in the video (Annexures A & C) and the comments in these videos which have been transcripted and appended as Annexures B & D of the charge which has been supplied to me through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. It is, however, denied that I made any derogatory remarks regarding a sitting Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Court Ques:- Since only two people were giving interview, who would you attribute the comment to? Ans:- The words could be imputed and may be of my cointerviewer Mr.Balwinder Singh Sekhon who was also giving the interview which I have given. My life and liberty should be protected. RO & AC Sd/- 24.02.2023' 18. Ans:- The words could be imputed and may be of my cointerviewer Mr.Balwinder Singh Sekhon who was also giving the interview which I have given. My life and liberty should be protected. RO & AC Sd/- 24.02.2023' 18. As we have noticed in our short order of even date, a perusal of the above statements would go on to show that there is no doubt that the video CD (Annexure C) was circulated on 16.02.2023 by uploading on the channel of respondent No.6 transcript of which is Annexure D was prepared by way of a interview held on 15.02.2023 after Court proceedings and further their misbehavior at the entrance which has already been reproduced above which are Annexures A & B. The respondent No.8 however being associated to the profession of journalism was careful and diligent enough not to upload the video on his channel 'Scroll Punjab' as apparently he did not get the green signal and was well aware as how damaging the same was and that is his defence as he would have an obligation to ensure that the publication was substantially true and made in good faith. He had also been asked to file appropriate affidavit for which proceedings are also pending but apparently he has a defence to the extent which would need to be looked into that when the interview was taking place, the accomplices of respondent Nos.6 & 7 were also filming the interview and they had uploaded the same at their own level on the channel of respondent No.6. 19. The statement of respondent No.6 is belligerent enough to say that he has a right of freedom of speech and he categorically denied the said videos and the transcripts. Apart from that as noticed in the short order of even date he got personal with the Court, which has also been noticed when his statement was recorded. However, the respondent No.7 admitted his presence in both the videos (Annexures A & C) which have been duly transcribed and the charges which have been raised against him as supplied to him at the time of his arrest. Thus it is apparent that he admits the fact that he is and has been part of these derogatory videos. 20. As noticed also, the said videos have been circulated and also seen by us which has led to the issuance of these notices. Thus it is apparent that he admits the fact that he is and has been part of these derogatory videos. 20. As noticed also, the said videos have been circulated and also seen by us which has led to the issuance of these notices. The facts are crystal clear before us, the identity is known, the offence is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, the interference in the administration of justice is blatant, the Institution has been brought to disrepute at the hands of these two blackmailers. We ask the question that is there anything else we have to do to let these people further degrade the system which apparently they are willing to do; there is neither any plausible explanation nor any defence which they could have raised and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.6 & 7 have nothing to say against the charges leveled against them. 21. It is to be noticed that in widely reported covered case, a sitting Judge of the Chennai High Court had exceeded all limits while giving public statements which had been highlighted by the electronic and print media. The Apex Court was forced to step in suo-motu contempt petition in Re: Shri Justice Karnan, 2017 (7) SCC 1 , a Seven Judge Bench continued a sentence of 6 months while issuing directions that any further statements made by him should not be published thereafter. If the long arm of law can reach out to a sitting High Court Judge, we do not see any reason why the present respondent Nos.6 & 7 who have been apparently misguided or are under misapprehension that they were beyond the reach of law should be spared the sentence. 22. The only plausible argument which could have raised by the contemnors is that appropriate charge should be framed for providing the issue beyond reasonable doubt, as they were entitled for benefit of doubt. We have given an opportunity to respondent No.8 to file his affidavit and give explanation, whereas in the case of respondent Nos.6 & 7 falls on different footings. Their identity and the admission that they were part of the videos and that it was done as admitted by respondent No.7 regarding his presence in the said videos and the fact that it had happened on the spur of the moment, needs no scope for further opportunity to them. Their identity and the admission that they were part of the videos and that it was done as admitted by respondent No.7 regarding his presence in the said videos and the fact that it had happened on the spur of the moment, needs no scope for further opportunity to them. Similarly, there is no such documentary evidence which has to be examined for which a formal trial is required to be conducted. The malicious videos have already been put to the said respondents by way of soft copies as well as transcripts and their explanation has already been sought. The contempt is on the face of the Court. There is admission regarding their presence in the said videos. As such in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there is no need for a trial. 23. The power of Section 14 read with Article 215 came up to the fore when it occurs in the face of the Court wherein offensive, indecorous and abusive language was used in the Apex Court and allegations were made that Judges should be jailed and even a chappal was thrown in the presence of the Solicitor General of India, two Additional Solicitor General of India and the President of the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association in the Court. One of the Judges directed the Registrar to take the said 4 persons into custody from the Court premises and it was held that there is no need for issuing any notice and 3 months simple imprisonment was imposed. The second Judge dissented placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 14 saying that the Court must act with utmost restraint and follow all the procedural requirements and since the liberty of the said persons were involved. A person could not be imprisoned by having the safeguards of Section 14 and the power of restraint under Section 14(4) was temporary. Provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India was noticed while penning down the dissenting order while referring to the fundamental right under Article 21 and that the mandate of Section 14 had to be followed, in Leila David Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2009 AIR (SC) 3272 and the matter was referred to a 3 Judge Bench on 20.03.2009. 24. The matter was then listed before the said Bench on 20.03.2009 and the contemnors were produced and enlarged on bail. State of Maharashtra & others, 2009 AIR (SC) 3272 and the matter was referred to a 3 Judge Bench on 20.03.2009. 24. The matter was then listed before the said Bench on 20.03.2009 and the contemnors were produced and enlarged on bail. After an application for intervention was filed by the Bar Association. The Bench noticed that when proceedings were being conducted the contempt had occurred and both the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the President of the Bar Association had submitted arguments that going through the procedure under Section 14 would be redundant if the action takes place in full public view by any signs and without any remorse or repentance being shown. The pleadings which had been subsequently filed also showed that the judicial process was being debased in the eyes of the public. They had, at that point of time, relied upon another 3 Judge Bench judgment in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1995 AIR (SC) 2348 wherein the President of the Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council being a Senior Advocate had been handed over suspension of sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months which was to remain in force for a period of 4 years. An attempt was then made for asking the Bench to recuse itself from the said case and the other witnesses also started making indecent, slanderous and offensive language while falling back on Article 19 and 21. It was accordingly held that the purpose of Section 14 was totally different and it did not preclude the Court from taking recourse to summary proceedings once deliberate and willful contumacious incident takes place in front of the eyes of the Court and the public at large and a summary procedure followed on an earlier occasion could not be faulted. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 21.10.2009 reported as Leila David Vs. State of Maharashtra & others 2010 AIR SC 862 reads as under: '16. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt are concerned, we are of the view that Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat was well within his jurisdiction in passing a summary order, having regard to the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. State of Maharashtra & others 2010 AIR SC 862 reads as under: '16. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt are concerned, we are of the view that Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat was well within his jurisdiction in passing a summary order, having regard to the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Although, Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure to be followed in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court, it does not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary proceedings when a deliberate and wilful contumacious incident takes place in front of their eyes and the public at large, including Senior Law Officers, such as the Attorney General for India who was then the Solicitor General of India. While, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Ganguly, it is a statutory requirement and a salutary principle that a person should not be condemned unheard, particularly in a case relating to contempt of Court involving a summary procedure, and should be given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him/her, there are exceptional circumstances in which such a procedure may be discarded as being redundant. The incident which took place in the court room presided over by Dr. Justice Pasayat was within the confines of the court room and was witnessed by a large number of people and the throwing of the footwear was also admitted by Dr. Sarita Parikh, who without expressing any regret for her conduct stood by what she had done and was supported by the other contemnors. In the light of such admission, the summary procedure followed by Dr. Justice Pasayat cannot be faulted. 17. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, deals with contempt in the face of the Supreme Court or the High Court. The expression "Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court" has been interpreted to mean an incident taking place within the sight of the learned Judges and others present at the time of the incident, who had witnessed such incident. The expression "Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court" has been interpreted to mean an incident taking place within the sight of the learned Judges and others present at the time of the incident, who had witnessed such incident. In re: Nand Lal Balwani [ (1999) 2 SCC 743 ], it was held that where an Advocate shouted slogans and hurled a shoe towards the Court causing interference with judicial proceedings and did not even tender an apology, he would be liable for contempt in the face of the Court. It was observed by the Bench of three Judges which heard the matter that law does not give a lawyer, unsatisfied with the result of any litigation, licence to permit himself the liberty of causing disrespect to the Court or attempting, in any manner, to lower the dignity of the Court. It was also observed that Courts could not be intimidated into passing favourable orders. Consequently, on account of his contumacious conduct, this Court sentenced the contemnor to suffer four months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In another decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and another [(1988) 3 SCC 255], a petition filed by an experienced advocate of this Court by way of a public interest litigation was couched in unsavoury language and an intentional attempt was made to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Supreme Court and other constitutional institutions. Many of the allegations made by him were likely to lower the prestige of the Supreme Court. It was also alleged that the Supreme Court had become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government. This Court held that the pleadings in the writ petition gave the impression that they were clearly intended to denigrate the Supreme Court in the esteem of the people of India. In the facts of the case, the petitioner therein was prima facie held to be guilty of contempt of Court. 18. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. In the facts of the case, the petitioner therein was prima facie held to be guilty of contempt of Court. 18. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, where an incident of the instant nature takes place within the presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the incident itself. This is necessary for the dignity and majesty of the Courts to be maintained. When an object, such as a footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a Court proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalize or humiliate the Judge, but to scandalize the institution itself and thereby lower its dignity in the eyes of the public. In the instant case, after being given an opportunity to explain their conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly behaviour, but they have gone even further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate language have been resorted to to further denigrate and scandalize and over-awe the Court. This is one of such cases where no leniency can be shown as the contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the Court as licence for indulging in indecorous behaviour and making scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary, but those holding the highest positions in the country. The writ proceedings have been taken in gross abuse of the process of Court, with the deliberate and wilful intention of lowering the image and dignity not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to vilify the highest constitutional functionaries. 19. In such circumstances, while agreeing with the procedure adopted by Dr. Justice Pasayat in the facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence which has been imposed on the contemnors. The order dated 20th March, 2009, granting bail to the contemnors is hereby recalled. The Secretary General is directed to take the contemnors into custody forthwith and to arrange to have them sent to the appropriate jail to serve out the sentence.' 25. The order dated 20th March, 2009, granting bail to the contemnors is hereby recalled. The Secretary General is directed to take the contemnors into custody forthwith and to arrange to have them sent to the appropriate jail to serve out the sentence.' 25. Thus, in view of the settled position of law which we have noticed in our short order of even date, while relying upon the said precedent, the claim for the benefit of a counsel would be only an attempt to further delay the proceedings frustrating the whole purpose of summary procedure provided under Section 14. 26. In Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2010 (3) SCC 705 , the Apex Court observed that if contempt maters are kept pending for more than 3 years, it would amount to contravention of the true spirit of the purpose of initiation of the contempt proceedings. The Legal Provisions and the Precedents which govern the procedure to be followed: 27. Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides all the High Courts would be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except according to procedure established by law. Articles 19 (1) (a) (2), 21 and 215 read as under:- 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.- (1) All citizens shall have the right- (a) to freedom of speech and expression (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of 4[the sovereignty and integrity of India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure establish by law. xxxxxxxx 215. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure establish by law. xxxxxxxx 215. High Courts to be courts of record.-Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 28. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which provides the right of the Courts to punish a contemnor in its jurisdiction which is inherent, as per the statements, reasons and objects. It has been mentioned that the said jurisdiction of contempt has two important fundamental rights of the citizens namely the right to personal liberty and right to freedom of speech and expression. The same was examined in terms of the need in safeguarding the status and dignity of the Court viz-a viz for the citizens to maintain dignity of the Court and interest, of administration of justice. Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt which provides that publication whether by way of words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation which scandalizes or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding and obstruct or tends to obstructs the administration of justice, would amount to Contempt of Court. 29. Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides that innocent publication and distribution of matter is not contempt and there is also a defence provided that if there are reasonable grounds of the lack of knowledge of proceedings pending would not constitute Contempt of Court. Similarly, Section 4 talks about fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings are not contempt and fair criticism of judicial act is not contempt under Section 5. 30. Similarly, protection is granted under Section 7 for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers or in camera with certain exceptions. Section 10 further provides that the High Court can punish for contempt of subordinate Courts. The punishment clause provides under Section 12, which can extend upto six months with simple imprisonment or with fine of Rs.2,000/-. The proviso itself of Section 12 (1) provides that accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. The punishment clause provides under Section 12, which can extend upto six months with simple imprisonment or with fine of Rs.2,000/-. The proviso itself of Section 12 (1) provides that accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Section 13 (a) further puts a condition that no Court shall impose sentence for contempt unless it satisfies the contempt that substantially interferes or tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice. 31. Section 13 (b) further provides that where there is a justification by truth is a valid defence and if the court is satisfied that it is in public interest and request for invoking the said defence is bonafide, the contemnor shall not be punished. The procedure under Section 14 of the 1971 Act provides procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. It further summarizes the procedure as such and also gives the power to detain a person for charge under contempt under Section 14 (4). 32. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 14 read as under: 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (c) 'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter of 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; (d) 'High Court' means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory. 3. 3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt.-(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time beingin force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of Court. (3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of (i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867); (ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 5 of the said Act. 4. Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt.-Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof. 5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt.-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. xxxxxxxxxxx 14. 5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt.-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. xxxxxxxxxxx 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.-(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall- (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the Court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case. (4) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify: Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money as the Court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the Court: Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid. 33. It is in exercise of such power under Section 14 (4) of the 1971 Act, we were constrained to detain the contemnors by passing the order on 20.02.2023, as apparently even in spite of issuing notice on 15.02.2023, respondent No.7 had refused to accept the summons from the Court official and instead of accepting the same, had gone on to posting videos on the social media. The detention was also done for the reasons as allegations were made that they would further defame the system by putting on material on the social media platforms. This was successfully curtailed by the moment they were detained by the police authorities. In spite of that apparently material was posted on the social media by somebody else when they had given a interview while in judicial custody. We have noticed that while putting in appearance on 24.02.2023, the respondent Nos.9 to 11, the intermediaries have fully cooperated to the extent of blocking, deleting all such offending material pertaining to Court proceedings, keeping in view the sanctity of the Court and purity of justice system. We have noticed that while putting in appearance on 24.02.2023, the respondent Nos.9 to 11, the intermediaries have fully cooperated to the extent of blocking, deleting all such offending material pertaining to Court proceedings, keeping in view the sanctity of the Court and purity of justice system. Our directions have been clear and univocal that such material shall continue to remain deleted and blocked and any new site as such located shall be blocked on information by the Registrar (Computerization) of this Court, who has been authorized to interact with these platforms to give information and screen such material and remove the same, which shall continue to remain in force. 34. In Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 710 , a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the case of a judicial officer, who had been sentenced for two months simple imprisonment by the Full Bench of the High Court noticed that the said contemnor had made allegations of malafides and improper motives of bias and prejudice against the Judges of the High Court and also the Chief Justice. It was noticed that situation has been put forth that Courts could not administer justice fearlessly. Resultantly the Apex Court came to the conclusion that it amounts to gross scandalization of the High Court and also rejected the argument that criticism could be done of the administrative acts even in vilification terms and could not amount to Contempt of Court. It was, accordingly, held that if there is an attack on a Judge, which substantially affects the administration of justice, it becomes a public mischief punishable for contempt, and an unwarranted attack on account of corrupt administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack on his adjudicatory function. The same was in context of the said judicial officer who was raising the issue of malafide allegations regarding the administrative side of the High Court. The argument that there was warrant to take a narrow view that the offence of scandalization of the Court takes place only when the imputation has reference to the adjudicatory function of a Judge in the seat of justice, was also rejected. The argument that there was warrant to take a narrow view that the offence of scandalization of the Court takes place only when the imputation has reference to the adjudicatory function of a Judge in the seat of justice, was also rejected. Justice Krishna Iyer, wrote a separate judgment on the same while taking the same view and has held that there is a liberal margin which could be permissible but batting within the crease and observing the rules of game are necessary. Resultantly, while balancing the right of free speech and the right to independent justice, it was held that the ignition of contempt action should be substantial. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:- '92. To wind up the key word is "justice", not "judge"; the key-note thought is unobstructed public justice, not the self-defence of a judge; the cornerstone of the contempt law is the accommodation of two constitutional values - the right of free speech and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be substantial and mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel. 93. We have sought to set our legal sights in line with the new constitutional order and endeavoured so to draw the grey contours of the contempt law that it fulfils its high purpose but not more. We have tried to avoid subjectivism in the law, recognising, by a re-statement the truth that "the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by. Benjamin N. Cardozo - The Nature of the Judicial Process - New Haven; Yale University Press - page 168.' 35. The said paragraphs would guide us as how the present contemnors who have been sentenced crossed the Laxman Rekha time and again and we held our patience and have suffered them hoping that reason and good sense would prevail upon them. An offer given in open Court to take down the offending material and not to resort to it again has been rejected under the guise of 'freedom of speech' and therefore, the above judgment would be fully applicable as such. 36. An offer given in open Court to take down the offending material and not to resort to it again has been rejected under the guise of 'freedom of speech' and therefore, the above judgment would be fully applicable as such. 36. Similarly, in Hargovind Dayal Srivastava and another vs. G.N. Verma and others 1977(1) SCC 744 , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had noticed that passing a resolution against the Chief Justice of the High Court amounted to the bar failing in their duty and the faith of the people in the judiciary would be undermined to a large extent while noting that lawyers are the custodian of civilization and they have to discharge their duty with dignity, decorum and discipline. 37. In Jiwani Kumari Parekh vs Satyabrata Chakravorty, Managing Director and Chief Executive, AIR 1991 SC 326 , the Apex Court observed that the contempt should be willful, deliberate and disobedience the orders of the Court and mere non-compliance of an order as such would not amount to contempt. 38. In Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andra Pradesh and another, 2013 (10) SCC 591 , the Apex Court held that the reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others but an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury and the freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is subject to the right of reputation of others. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:- 11.Allegations against any person if found to be false or made forging some one else signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as 'to have a good name; the credit, honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report'. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is 'not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life.' (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714 ; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109 ; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398 ; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573 ; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398 ).' 39. In similar circumstances, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bombay High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Ketan Tirodkar, 2018 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal (Crl.) 33, while dealing with such similar allegations of blocking, fell back on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it was not necessary to formulate the charge on a specific allegation. The Judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and steps have to be taken as ordered as early and as quickly as possible. An opportunity of being heard in defence and dragging on of contempt proceedings and separately using the power is the prescription alone. Directions were also issued in the said case to remove all defamatory material posted on the Facebook, YouTube etc. While elaborating on the procedure of contempt, it was held that freedom is not absolute as is now thought to be but subject to a reasonable restriction and if in the course of exercise of this freedom, a person would not be able to escape the consequences of the Contempt of Courts Act, if he commits contempt. While elaborating on the procedure of contempt, it was held that freedom is not absolute as is now thought to be but subject to a reasonable restriction and if in the course of exercise of this freedom, a person would not be able to escape the consequences of the Contempt of Courts Act, if he commits contempt. The factum that this Court would not enjoy immunity from fair criticism, but the same should be to attribute improper motives, or tending to bring down Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly the functioning of the Court. Reliance was placed upon Shakespeare to quote that 'what makes it poorer is not the stealing of the purse, but what filches from his is my good name and which would make him poor indeed'. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:- '7. It is such a person we are dealing with. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed several decades back in the case of Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh 1993 supp (1) SCC 529 that the maxim: 'salus populi suprema lex', that is "the welfare of the people is the supreme law" adequately enunciates the idea of law. This can be achieved only when justice is administered lawfully, judicially without fear or favour and without being hampered and thwarted and this cannot be effected unless respect for it is fostered and maintained. A wrong doer like the respondent who puts himself on occasions and at times on par with advocates can hardly be heard to complain. He is mindful of the fact that the proceedings in contempt have to be conducted by following a summary procedure. The power of this Court to punish for contempt is not restricted or trammeled by ordinary legislations. This Court derives the same from Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The inherent power thus derived is elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit. In Pritam Pal and later cases, it has been adequately and amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that so long as the gist of the specific allegations is made clear or otherwise the contemnor is aware of the specific allegations, it is not always necessary to formulate the charge in a a specific allegation. The procedure under the Rules, therefore, does not offend the principles of natural justice. The procedure under the Rules, therefore, does not offend the principles of natural justice. The Judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must be able to take steps to restore order as early and quickly as possible. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated depends upon the circumstances of each case. The time factor is crucial. Dragging of contempt proceedings means a lengthy interruption to the proceedings which, at times, paralyzes the Court and indirectly impedes the speed and efficiency with which justice is administered. So long as the contemnor's interests are adequately safeguarded by giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence, then, the procedure followed cannot be faulted. This is the summary of the salutary principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at the same time, it has cautioned that the power should be used sparingly. We have, but gone by this prescription alone. xxxxxxxxxxx 25 Considered in the light of the aforesaid position in law, a bare reading of the statements makes it clear that those amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges. It is offensive and intimidating. The contemnor by making such scandalising statements and invective remarks has interfered and seriously shaken the system of administration of justice by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence of the people in the Court. Once door is opened to this kind of allegations, aspersions and imputations, it may provide a handle to the disgruntled litigants to malign the Judges, leading to character assassination. A good name is better than good riches. Immediately comes to one's mind Shakespeare's Othello, Act II, Scene 3, 167:- 'Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord is the immediate jewel of their souls; who steals my purse, steals trash; its something, nothing; 'T was mine, its his, and has been slate to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.' xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 38. A perusal of the offending posts would demonstrate that these are "publication" and falling within the clear language of the provision. The language of section 2 clause (c) is plain and unambiguous. A perusal of the offending posts would demonstrate that these are "publication" and falling within the clear language of the provision. The language of section 2 clause (c) is plain and unambiguous. If criminal contempt means the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever, then, these are nothing but publications and the content thereof so also the acts in relation thereto, scandalise and lower the authority of this Court. Further, they interfere and obstruct the administration of justice. There is a clear mandate flowing from the law and namely that this law is enacted for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. This is a jurisdiction to maintain the dignity of the Court at all costs. By naming Judges individually, sitting and retired, and casting aspersions on their character, integrity and impartiality, the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. This is not a mere defamation of a Judge/s otherwise than in discharge of his or her duties as such. This is a clear case of scandalising and lowering the authority of the court itself. By targetting the Judges of this Court, the respondent is scandalising and lowering the authority of the Court itself. It is well settled that a High Court is the highest Court in the State. It is not the last or the final Court, but is a Court conferred with Original, Civil Appellate, Criminal Appellate and Constitutional jurisdiction, The High Court is a creature of the Constitution itself. The High Court of a State is an important part of the judicial set-up established by our Constitution. This Court is approached by lakhs of litigants who are aggrieved by the actions and orders of the State Government, quasi-judicial authorities and judicial tribunals, subordinate Courts trying civil and criminal cases. This Court is also conferred with supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Its powers are both supervisory and administrative. It ensures that every Court or Tribunal subordinate to it acts within the limits of its authority, power and jurisdiction. It corrects erroneous orders and illegal actions of Courts and Tribunals and that of statutory authorities and the Government. It being endowed with wide and enormous powers is, in the true sense of the term, a guardian and trustee of the public and ensures that the constitutional guarantee of justice to all is well and truly fulfilled. It corrects erroneous orders and illegal actions of Courts and Tribunals and that of statutory authorities and the Government. It being endowed with wide and enormous powers is, in the true sense of the term, a guardian and trustee of the public and ensures that the constitutional guarantee of justice to all is well and truly fulfilled. Its position and status being as above, by the impugned publications, the reputation and image of this Court itself is tarnished immensely. The public trust and confidence would be totally shaken if due cognisance of such publications is not taken and the person publishing the same is not proceeded against for contempt, that trust and confidence will erode further. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 41. The respondent may have moved this Court by filing PILs highlighting the issue of allotment of public lands and properties in the exercise of discretionary power of the State Government and Chief Minister to selected and influential persons allegedly. The respondent may have filed PILs challenging the allotment of land or public property to Cooperative Housing Societies of Judges or, as he projects, he may be allegedly aggrieved by an adverse judicial order, but that does not permit him to mount a scurrilous and reckless attack on Presiding Officers and Judges. He has chosen lady Presiding Officers and Judges and targetted them personally. He says that they are vulnerable and can be easily exploited for favourable judicial orders. This is a very serious charge and one who makes it carries the burden to establish and prove it to the hilt. The respondent does nothing of this kind. He releases Facebook posts and puts his comments and remarks, on the Judges and judiciary, in public domain. He circulates them with purpose. He parades himself, both as a hero and victim at the same time and seeks public sympathy. He seeks applause and praise from the public as well as sympathy, all at the same time. The respondent does this systematically, but we cannot forget that this is at the cost of the prestige, dignity and reputation of the judiciary which includes this Court. This Court performs several duties and obligations, including taking cognisance of complaints against members of the District Judiciary. This Court is also entrusted the functions and duties in terms of Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution of India. This Court performs several duties and obligations, including taking cognisance of complaints against members of the District Judiciary. This Court is also entrusted the functions and duties in terms of Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution of India. The power of control conferred by Article 235 of the Constitution carries with it the duty and responsibility to protect honest, hardworking and industrious Judges and Presiding Officers. However, when it comes to this Court and its Judges, if anybody indulges in acts amounting to criminal contempt, then, the law of the land empowers this Court to take cognisance and proceed to punish the guilty. Though we have proceeded to issue a suo-motu notice in contempt, we refrained from terming the respondent as contemnor either during the course of these proceedings or in this judgment. We have not stooped to the level to which the respondent has and we would never do so. However, if the respondent feels that he can get away by such publications or by filing affidavits aggravating the contempt, then, he is sadly mistaken and it is our duty to ensure that neither the respondent nor anybody ever gets this impression. They must not entertain any doubts nor ever think of being pardoned if they indulge in the acts of the present nature. It is time to remind parties before this Court and litigants in particular that Courts of Justice are set up and established so that none suffers injustice. None should feel helpless if his legal and constitutional rights are trampled upon even by the mightiest, including the State. Such acts of the highest Executive and political functionaries are open to challenge by approaching the competent civil and criminal Courts and equally the constitutional Courts. A right cause brought in a lawful manner before a Court will seldom go unnoticed. When we reach out to the people and ensure access to justice, we have an equal duty to come down heavily on those who pollute the system. The stream of justice must be pure and every impurity, dirt and stain thereon has to be removed. Equally, the hurdles and obstructions in the path of justice. The acts of the present nature are increasing. This is the recent trend and in the garb of criticising judgments, Judges are personally attacked on Facebook posts and social media. The stream of justice must be pure and every impurity, dirt and stain thereon has to be removed. Equally, the hurdles and obstructions in the path of justice. The acts of the present nature are increasing. This is the recent trend and in the garb of criticising judgments, Judges are personally attacked on Facebook posts and social media. Members of the judiciary, the defence forces and the police are ridiculed and disrespected openly. They do not and rather cannot utter a word in defence. They do not have the freedom or liberty to appear before the public and give explanations. That does not mean that they are helpless. They do not speak because they are aware that Judges perform a sovereign and regal function. Administration of justice, Maintenance of Law and Order and Defence of India are Sovereign and Regal functions. They cannot be outsourced. Therefore, the members of the judiciary are not looking out for protectors or defenders. The law casts a duty on the Judges themselves to protect the dignity and reputation of the Courts of Justice. The Courts of law deciding a cause in a judicious manner, well and truly perform a divine duty of rendering justice. If that is guaranteed by the Constitution and by the laws and the Judges take oath to uphold both the Constitution and the laws, then, they must and are expected to perform even unpleasant tasks of censuring and punishing persons like the respondent. If the Judges fail to do so, they would be betraying the trust and confidence reposed in them by the public at large. The Judges are looked upon for their independence, impartiality, their commitment to the cause of justice. Our freedom fighters and Constitution framers have worked hard and suffered as well to give to all of us the institution of judiciary. If that fails, there will be total anarchy and chaos. It is to fulfill the hope and expectation of the public from the judiciary that the law endows it with powers to punish for its contempt. The Judges are not taking recourse to this law to protect their own reputation. They are performing a painful task to safeguard and protect the institution itself. None of us are above the institution and it is because of the institution of judiciary that we have got an opportunity to serve the people. The Judges are not taking recourse to this law to protect their own reputation. They are performing a painful task to safeguard and protect the institution itself. None of us are above the institution and it is because of the institution of judiciary that we have got an opportunity to serve the people. We dedicate ourselves to the cause and service of public and particularly the innocent, illiterate and poor sections of the society who silently suffer and bear injustice. We make every attempt to reach them and it is their faith and trust in us which enables us to stand unitedly for them. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 44. The judgment in the case of Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Curt Bar Association Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Curt Bar Association and Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 109 and Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 109 far from assisting the respondent, would militate against his stand. There, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that every act of this nature must be considered in the backdrop of the potential to cause harm and prejudice to the administration of justice. In fact, the criticism of the judgment should be measured, restrained and not crossing the limits of sobriety. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly drawn the line in this context and the respondent would read the judgment not in its entirety, but relies on some paragraphs of the same. The part relied upon by him would support our conclusion. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the above principles and upheld the High Court order, but came to the conclusion that the conduct of Mr. Rajendra Sail was otherwise exemplary. That was because he brought many public interest litigations for general public. Hence, while the Hon'ble Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court holding Mr. Rajendra Sail guilty of contempt, merely reduced the punishment from six months to simple imprisonment of one week. If the respondent relies upon this paragraph in the hope that he can get away with lesser punishment, he is mistaken. He has not relied upon this judgment for this purpose. He has relied upon this judgment primarily in support of his contention that members of the public or even litigants have a right to criticise the judgments of this court and equally right to comment upon the conduct of judges. He has not relied upon this judgment for this purpose. He has relied upon this judgment primarily in support of his contention that members of the public or even litigants have a right to criticise the judgments of this court and equally right to comment upon the conduct of judges. It is true that the freedom of speech and expression may permit this course to a citizen, but every such freedom is restricted and if the criticism is found to be indecent, harmful and reckless to such an extent as would cause irreparable harm and damage to the institution itself, then, merely because a person like the respondent before us may bring cases in public interest before this court and raise issues of general and larger public importance that does not give him a licence or permit to launch an attack on personal character and calibre of the Judges. Even the citizens must realise that public servants, as the Judges are, they cannot be insulted and humiliated and they would not suffer indignation, insult, injury nor would they tolerate a attack on their conduct and functioning as a Judge, if that scandalises the court or obstructs the course of justice. It is the administration of justice, which is paramount and while performing that duty of rendering justice that a Judge is armed with the necessary powers, including imposing punishment for contempt of the court. A Judge does not defend himself or seek to protect himself personally, but when he proceeds in this manner, it is to subserve a larger cause, namely, maintaining dignity and reputation of the institution of judiciary. Hence, we do not think that the respondent can capitalise on his acts of filing some PILs in this court or assisting this court in deciding issues of larger public interest. Hence, reliance on this judgment is also misplaced.' 40. A Full Bench of this Court in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. A.J. Philip, Printer, Publisher, Tribune Press, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl.) 867, has held that Judges at all levels and all over are exposed or vulnerable to attack, unfounded criticism by one side or the other in every case that comes before them. Publication of unfounded news and casting aspersions on a Judge certainly vitiates the healthy air and judicial environment. The responsibility of the press to be perfect, requires eternal vigilance and verification of true facts. Publication of unfounded news and casting aspersions on a Judge certainly vitiates the healthy air and judicial environment. The responsibility of the press to be perfect, requires eternal vigilance and verification of true facts. Resultantly, while initiating action against the said newspaper, which had purported that a High Court Judge name was included in the FIR, discharged the notice of contempt issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation and accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the Editor and the Reporter. It was also noticed that a greater responsibility is cast upon the Editor and management of the paper to be cautious and careful in reporting the matters. Thus, Courts have always been magnamus where the respondents relies their mistakes and also the right of publication and freedom of speech has to kept in mind, but not where they stand in an obdurate manner justifying their illegal actions. 41. In similar circumstances, in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. Maneesh Chibber, Senior Correspondent, 2005 Criminal Law Journal 718, a journalist while seeking information visited at late hours of the night a house of a High Court Judge to inquire whether a raid had been conducted on two Hon'ble Judges of this Court and also a publication of the said visits had been made and it was held that it amounted to serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. However, it was held that the act does not amount to contempt or it does not constitute a conduct so abhorrent as to cause this Court to exercise its powers to punish for contempt. 42. Similarly in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.) 51, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has held that the legal parameter of reporting as such on a sub-judice matter is well defined and any action in breach of the legal bounds would invite consequences. Since the said case pertained to a sting operation, it was noticed that the interview regarding the trial which was pending had led to the persons to lose their self restraint in a sub-judice matter and even the testimony of a Court was not over and there was no constructive suggestion, which had come from anyone as to how to revamp the administration of criminal justice, but the programme began on negative note and remained so till the very end. Notice was issued to the respondent in the said case qua enhancement of the sentence. 43. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & others Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India & another' AIR 2012 SC 3829 while also dealing with the same situation held that when one of the news channels flashed on TV the details of the Court proceedings, which was obviously not meant for public circulation. The aspects of international law and approach of the US, Canadian, Australia and New Zealand Courts were examined including the international approach. The power under Article 215 was noticed and co-related with Article 19 (2) and while placing reliance upon Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 130 and it was held that law of contempt is a way to prevent the due process of law from getting perverted. It was held that the necessity for any such order would depend upon the facts of each case and individuals involved in the case and the right to fear and accurate reporting with a right of Media to know what is happening in Court and to disseminate the information to the public which enhances the public confidence in the transparency of court proceedings. Resultantly, it was held that postponement of such material only safeguards fairness of the pending proceedings. It was also held that the basis as such of actual and not planned publication must create a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, it was held that subject to above parameters, postponement orders fall under Article 19(2) and they satisfy the test of reasonableness. Resultantly, it was held that publication amounting to contempt has to be examined by the Court in the context on case to case basis. We have already done the said exercise on the factual matrix as narrated above. 44. In Re: Parshant Bhushan and another, 2021 (1) SCC 745 on account of tweets being posted by the Senior Counsel on social media notice had been issued, to which the defence was that it was a right of free speech and the critical role of the various Chief Justices. In the said case also that the Twitter had taken action by blocking and disabling the offending post. In the said case also that the Twitter had taken action by blocking and disabling the offending post. While placing reliance upon Article 129 of the Constitution of India which is worded in similar terms as Article 215, it was held that the power cannot be abrogated or stultified. Resultantly, the objections as such raised was repelled that definition under Section 2 (c) of the 1971 Act is of a wider articulation and the jurisdiction has to be exercised not to protect the dignity of an individual Judge, but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Accordingly, it was held that the manner in which the tweets had been put out by a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years of standing could not be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest. The damage had been done to the institution of administration of justice and the dignity of the Apex Court and the CJI had been undermined and it directly affronts the majesty of law. Resultantly, respondent was held guilty of having committed criminal contempt, whilst dropping the proceedings against the intermediary platform. Relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- '72. Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens in the country with the highest esteem. The judiciary is considered as a last hope when a citizen fails to get justice anywhere. The Supreme Court is the epitome of the Indian judiciary. An attack on the Supreme Court does not only have the effect of tending an ordinary litigant of losing the confidence in the Supreme Court but also may tend to lose the confidence in the mind of other judges in the country in its highest court. A possibility of the other judges getting an impression that they may not stand protected from malicious attacks, when the Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be ruled out. As such, in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that the Court is required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the judges or of the institution of administration of justice. As such, in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that the Court is required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the judges or of the institution of administration of justice. However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation of the institution of the judiciary and thereby damaging the very foundation of the democracy. 45. Eventually in a subsequent judgment passed in Re: Prashant Bhushan and another, 2021 (3) SCC 160 , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had rejected the argument that the contempt law being an archaic law has to be done away with and while relying on Section 13 of the 1971 Act examined that truth is a valid defence in any contempt proceedings if it satisfied that such a defence is in the public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide. It was held that the defence taken was more derogatory to the reputation of the Court and had further scandalized and brought down the administration of justice. It was also held that the tweet was capable of creating an impression that the Apex Court in the last six years has played a vital role in the destruction of democracy. Resultantly, it was held that the right of free speech is essential to democracy which cannot be allowed to degrade the institution. Resultantly, it was noticed that the contemnor had neither showing regret despite an opportunity given by the Court and, therefore, appropriate sentence had to be imposed upon him. Resultantly, a token fine of Rs.1/-was imposed which was directed to be deposited with the Registry of the Court, failing which he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- '81. Argument raised by Dr. Dhavan that Free Speech is part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be disputed. However, we are not convinced that while exercising power under Article 129 of the Constitution, we are interfering with the rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Supreme Court being a court of record can punish for contempt. Argument raised by Dr. Dhavan that Free Speech is part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be disputed. However, we are not convinced that while exercising power under Article 129 of the Constitution, we are interfering with the rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Supreme Court being a court of record can punish for contempt. He also argued about the Freedom of Press, which is beyond doubt an important aspect of democracy. Free Speech is essential to democracy can also not be disputed, but it cannot denigrate one of the institutions of the democracy. As observed in Ma neka Gandhi v. Union of India a nd Anoth er, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , democracy is based on free debate and open discussion, however, cannot go to the extent of the scurrilous attack and shaking the faith of the general public in such institution. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information, which includes freedom to hold an opinion as was held in Secreta ry, Ministry of Informa tion a nd Broa dca sting, Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Associa tion of Benga l & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 161 . No doubt, one is free to form an opinion and make fair criticism but if such an opinion is scandalous and malicious, the public expression of the same would also be at the risk of the contempt jurisdiction. No doubt that the contention raised by Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel, that free speech, as envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is a fundamental right. However, it cannot be forgotten that rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and rights of others cannot be infringed in the process. The same have to be balanced. While exercising the powers under Article 129 of the Constitution, the Court will have to strike a balance between the right under Article 19(1)(a) and the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. No doubt that, as urged by Dr. Dhavan, freedom of press is also an important aspect in a democracy. We cannot control the thinking process and words operating in the mind of one individual, but when it comes to expression, it has to be within the constitutional limits. No doubt that, as urged by Dr. Dhavan, freedom of press is also an important aspect in a democracy. We cannot control the thinking process and words operating in the mind of one individual, but when it comes to expression, it has to be within the constitutional limits. Lawyers' noble profession will lose all its significance and charm and dignity if the lawyers are permitted to make any malicious, scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the institution of which they are part. The lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the institution.' 46. Section 15 further provides that Criminal Contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 can be acted upon by the Supreme Court or High Court on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. We have been informed by the Advocate General, Punjab that he has also received representation again the said persons to take action for the methodology which they have resorted to. We do not wish to say anything on this aspect as it would be for the Advocate General to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and action on the same. 47. Under Section 17 any action taken under Section 15 the notice can be served personally and even the Court has the power to order attachment of his property, if the person avoids his service. Thus, the powers as such of the Court are immense and it is in such circumstances, we have invoked the same. We have noticed that there has been no repentance or remorse of their conduct. Rather there are no mitigating circumstances as the reputation of this institution has been unsparingly degraded and brought down by these two persons and we have recorded our reasons as what is the basis of this malicous campaign, which is far beyond an emotional outburst as projected by one of them. 48. Rather there are no mitigating circumstances as the reputation of this institution has been unsparingly degraded and brought down by these two persons and we have recorded our reasons as what is the basis of this malicous campaign, which is far beyond an emotional outburst as projected by one of them. 48. They resort to information and technology and the fact that by virtue of the internet they have able to access a large audience through a platform which requires no payment and reach out to millions of people has also boomeranged on them in as much as there is unimpeachable material on record recovered from the said platforms and downloaded by the officials of this Court alongwith their transcriptions as adversly uploaded in context to Court proceedings and as noticed above to come the conclusion that there is no scope to take a contrary view. 49. In view of the aforesaid reasons both Balwinder Singh Sekhon-respondent No.6 and Pardeep Sharma-respondent No.7 are held guilty of the charge issued against them vide order dated 20.02.2023 for criminal contempt. They have fallen foul of the provisions mentioned under Section 2(c)(i) to (iii) of the 1971 Act since the contempt had been committed in the face of this Court under Section 14 of the 1971 Act and punishable under Section 12 of the 1971 Act while also invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we sentence them for a period of 6 months along with fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is to be undergone at Model Jail, Burail, U.T. Chandigarh. The sentence for six months shall be counted from the date when they were detained by the police authorities on 20.02.2023 and the said sentence shall be inclusive of the period already undergone by them in judicial custody. Copy of this order be supplied to respondent Nos.6 & 7 immediately.