(1) THESE contempt matters relate to comments made by the alleged contemners against Shri Justice Kuldip Singh after he had submitted his report as Chairman of the Enquiry Commission set up by the Central Government. In Contempt Petition No. 9 of 1990 an objection has been raised by Shri D.D. Thakur, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the alleged contemner that the petition is not maintainable since consent of the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General for India was not obtained as required by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A question arises as to whether in the absence of the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General suo motu proceedings can be initiated against the alleged contemner. Shri D.D. Thakur has, however, submitted that since the alleged contempt arose more than one year back. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would operate as a bar against the initiation of suo motu proceedings for contempt against the alleged contemner.

(2) IN Contempt Petitions Nos. 11 and 12 of 1990 there is the opinion of the Attorney General expressing the view that when a Supreme Court Judge is appointed as a Commission