Criticism of a judicial officer's administrative actions or personal indiscretions, which does not interfere with the administration of justice or obstruct the course of law, does not constitute contempt of court.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 31 of 1942), by special leave, from a judgment of the High Court (November 14, 1941) by which the appellants were found guilty of contempt of court.

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The first two appellants, Debi Prasad Sharma and Deva Das Gandhi, were respectively the printer and publisher and the editor of the Hindustan Times, a daily newspaper published in Delhi and having a large circulation in the United Provinces. The third appellant, Radhe Lal Singhal, was the local correspondent of the newspaper at Meerut, and at the material date had been so employed for the past seven years. In July, 1941, the Sessions Judge at Meerut, Mr. Hari Shankar Vidyarthi, had been engaged in the trial of twenty persons charged with murder, rioting, etc., which ended oh July 31, 1941, when the judge convicted four of the accused and sentenced them to transportation for life. The remaining sixteen were acquitted. On August 1 the third appellant sent the following news item to the newspaper "(F.O.C.) Meerut, August 1. With the judicial "officers also now co-operating actively in the war efforts,” the efforts are bound to receive a heavy push forward. "The judicial officers all over the province have been, I reliably "learn, asked by the new Chief Justice of the Allahabad High "Court, who, it is understood, has been requested by His "Excellency the Governor, for co-operation in war efforts, "to raise subscriptions for the war funds. The judicial "officers raising money make it quite clear to the persons, "whom they ask to contribute, that the donations were "voluntary and they were not exercising any compulsion in "asking for funds. They could donate as much or as little "as they pleased."

On August 3 the newspaper published the news items with headings as follows " Judicial Officers for War Work. "Raising Subscriptions. New Chief Justices Circular." (From "Our Correspondent.) Meerut, Aug. 1. With the judicial "officers also now co-operating actively in the war efforts, "the efforts are bound to receive a heavy push forward. "The judicial officers all over the province have been, I "reliably learn, asked by the new Chief Justice of the Allahabad "High Court, who, it is understood, has been requested by "His Excellency the Governor for co-operation in war efforts, "to raise subscriptions for the war funds. The judicial "officers raising money make it quite clear to the persons "whom they ask to contribute that the donations were "voluntary and they were not exercising any compulsion in "asking for funds. They could donate as much or as little "as they pleased."

There followed a short report of the judgment in the murder case, headed "Murder Case Judgment." In the issue of the Hindustan Times of August 6 there appeared the following paragraph, which appeared to be an editorial comment "If it is true that the new Chief Justice of the Allahabad " High Court, Sir Iqbal Ahmad, in his administrative capacity, "has issued a circular to the judicial officers under his jurisdiction, enjoining on them to raise contributions to the war "funds, then it must said that he has done a thing which "would lower the prestige of the courts in the eyes of the "people. The presiding officer of a court, while asking for "funds, may say that the contribution is voluntary, but he "cannot remove the idea from the mind of a person, particularly a litigant, that the request is being made by one whom "it may not be safe to displease. To be absolutely voluntary, "war contributions ought to be raised only by non-official "committees or individuals. It was bad enough that the "services of the members of the executive were utilized for "the purpose, but to make judicial officers do this work is "something far worse."

On August 8, Iqbal Ahmad C.J. and Collister J. ordered that notice should be given to the first two appellants to appear in court on September 9, 1941, to show cause why they should not be punished for co