B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IT is universally agreed amongst the democratic States that "rule of Law" is a vital element in a free democracy. This principle is enshrined in our Constitution and jealously guarded by the Courts. The very concept of "rule of Law" encompasses a just legal system and a just legal system has rules, and principles that are understood by those applying them. The Rules apply to all persons. No one should be above the law, and all people should be treated equally as lord Denning recalled Thomas Fuller s words "be you never so high, the law is above you". Professor Dicey, observed:"when we speak of the "rule of law" as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law but that every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. In England the idea of legal equality, or the universal subjection of all classes to one law administered by the ordinary courts, has been pushed to its utmost limit. With us every official, from Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done with legal justification as any other citizen. The reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. A colonial governor, a secretary of State, a military officer, and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is a private and unofficial person. "

( 2 ) YET another occasion had arisen requiring this Court to discharge its duty of reminding the civil servants in the State of andhra Pradesh that they too are bound by the dictum "be you never so high, the law is above you".

( 3 ) LORD Diplock in Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Limited observed:"in any civilized society it is a function of government to maintain courts of law to which its citizens can have access for the impartial decision of disputes as to their legal rights and obligations towards one another individually and towards the state as representing society as a whole. The provision of such a system for the administration of justice by courts of law and the maintenance of public confidence in it, are essential if citizens are to live together in peaceful association with one another, "contempt of court" is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes, contempt of court may thus take many forms. . . . . . . . there is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity:. . . . . . . . "

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court of India had an occasion to observe "it is the people s welfare that the State is primarily concerned with and avoidance of compliance with a specific order of the Court cannot be termed to be a proper working of a State body in terms of the wishes and aspirations of the founding fathers of our Constitution" (Anil ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and others ).

( 5 ) CONTEMPTS of court have traditionally been classified as being either criminal or civil but has never been rigidly maintained. The proceedings for civil contempt are sometimes described as "quasi- criminal" because of the penal consequences that can attend the breach of an order. In both civil and criminal contempt proceedings, it is the considerations of public policy that underlying the contempt jurisdiction viz. , the protection of the administration of justice and the maintenance of the Court s authority. Althou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document