J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) THIS appeal is filed with special leave against the order of the High court of Calcutta declaring that a speech broadcast on the night of November 25, 1965, on the Calcutta Station of the All India Radio by Mr. P. C. Sen, then Chief Minister of West Bengal, was calculated to obstruct the course of justice and on that account amounted to contempt of court and the conduct of Mr. Sen merited disapproval.

(2) ON 23/08/1965, the State of West Bengal issued, in exercise of power under sub-rr. (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, the West Bengal Chhana Sweets Control Order, 1965, placing restrictions upon the right of persons carrying on business in milk products and especially dealers in sweetmeats made out of Channa. In a petition moved by Nani Gopal Paul the High court of Calcutta declared by order dated 16/11/1965, that the West Bengal Channa Sweets Control Order, 1965, is an "unreasonable piece of delegated legislation made in arbitrary exercise of power under Rule 125 without any justification in law and regardless of the purpose for which such order may be made", and issued an injunction against the State of West Bengal from enforcing that order.

(3) THE State of West Bengal thereafter issued another order with immediate effect on 18/11/1965, called the "West Bengal Milk Product Control Order, 1965". On 22/11/1965, Messrs. Ramlal Ghosh and Grandsons challenged by Petition No. 369 of 1965, the validity of the Order issued on 18/11/1965, and prayed for a writ declaring the Order "null and void" and for an injunction restraining the State of West Bengal and the secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services from giving effect to the said Order. Rule was issued on the Petition by Banerjee, J., and was duly served on the State of West Bengal, on 23/11/1965. On the night of 25/11/1965, the Chief Minister of West Bengal broadcast a speech on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station, seeking to justify the propriety of the Control Order. In the course of that broadcast speech the Chief Minister made several comments on controversial matters which were pending for adjudication before the Court.

(4) AT the hearing of the rule on 29/11/1965, counsel for Ramlal Ghosh and Grandsons brought to the notice of the court a newspaper report of the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister. Rule was issued by Banerjee, J., requiring the Chief Minister to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court on the grounds - (1) that the speech was likely to prejudice the Court and the public against the cause of the petitioners, and may compel or induce them to discontinue the action, (2) that it was likely to have "the pernicious consequence" of prejudicing the minds of the public against the petitioners, (3) and that it was likely to have the effect of misrepresenting a piece of illegal legislation before the court had an opportunity to decide the matter, and was on that account calculated to deter other persons having similar causes from approaching the court for relief.

(5) INSTEAD of making a frank statement before the court, the Chief Minister was apparently advised to adopt grossly technical pleas. Counsel informed the court that the Chief Minister did "not like to use any affidavit showing cause". Evidence was then led before the court to prove that the offending speech was in fact broadcast by the Chief Minister on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station. After evidence was recorded in the court about the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister he somewhat belatedly filed an affidavit on 4/03/1966, admitting that he had delivered the speech on the All India Radio on the night of 25/11/1965, the contents of which were proved by the evidence of the Programme Director. It was also admitted that the Chief Minister had knowledge of the filing of the petition when he broadcast the speech and of the rule served upon the State government. By.