Comments made by a Head of State Government about the functioning of the judiciary, even if critical, do not amount to contempt of court unless they are intended to scandalize the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice.

( 1 ) SHRI N. Janardhana Reddy, Honble Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein, delivered a speech at the inaugural function of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy in Secunderabad on 28-7-1991. The following is the relevant portion of speech as reported in the Hindu dated 29-7-1991 :"sometimes, the Chief Minister said, the judiciary was becoming an obstacle in the economic progress of the State by pronouncing arbitrary judgments in cases involving payment of compensation to the land acquired by Government for irrigation and other projects. In some cases, they were raising the compensation rate by 200 per cent (and in one case, it was 1500 times more ). All this resulted in 70 per cent of the cost of the irrigation projects being spent on payment of compensations to land owners. Unfortunately, the land owners were also not getting this increased compensation as they had to shell out half of this amount to their lawyers. This had to be checked and Government should be helped in implementing more projects which would contribute to the economic growth of the State. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein, a practising advocate at Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District, on reading the speech of the Honble Chief Minister as reported in the newspapers, made an application to the Advocate General under section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. That request was rejected by the Advocate General by his letter dated 12-9-1991 inter alia observing :"the alleged words of contempt were admittedly uttered in the presence of the Chief Justice and other Judges, who apparently did not understand these remarks as reflecting in any manner on the conduct of the judiciary or as otherwise denigrating it. The incident occurred quite some time ago and evoked no particular indignation in any section of the public. I am not satisfied in the circumstances that there is any warrant for instituting any proceedings for criminal contempt. "

( 3 ) THE present contempt case was, therefore, filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that this Court may take cognizance of criminal contempt against the first respondent and punish him.

( 4 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the case, it is averred by the petitioner that on a reading of the speech delivered by the first respondent as published in the newspapers "would definitely lead to the only conclusion that the Chief Minister was bent upon to launch scathing criticism against the judiciary, by virtue of which he has not only tarnished the image of the judiciary but also brought down the reputation of the judiciary". By stating that the judiciary at times is becoming an obstacle in the economic progress of the State by pronouncing arbitrary judgments involving payment of compensation to the land acquired by the Government for irrigation and other projects by hiking the compensation by 200 per cent, "the Honble Chief Minister has interfered with the functioning of the judiciary. " It is also alleged that the Chief Minister committed contempt of the Judiciary by, "scandalising and lowering the authority of the judiciary. The statement also prejudices or tends to interfere and obstruct the judicial process, proceedings and the administration of justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The speech made by Sri N. Janardhana Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh did bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair administration of justice. "

( 5 ) SHRI Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an young advocate interested in upholding the high traditions of the judiciary, its independence and prestige was very must upset at the speech made by the first respondent. Any member of the public who reads the speech will lose faith in the judiciary as the Chief Minister himself has described it as an institution pronouncing