Heard the learned Advocate General, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No.1 and Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No.2.

2. Show Cause Notices were issued by this Court on 4-8-2006 where under this Court had stated as hereunder:

1. An unfortunate, unprecedented, novel situation arose in State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Press reported and there was telecast too, of certain controversial statements threatening and derogatory, said to have been made about judicial verdict and also judiciary by both Sri Dr. V.S. Rajashekhar Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Sri K. Keshav Rao, the Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh. Judge is a public office. Judge is accountable to public. Judge is expected to discharge his duties as per the oath administered to him and taken, and as per the provisions of the Constitution of India. Confidence of public at large in judiciary to be protected at any cost and when the same is at peril, judge is duty bound to act in accordance with law. If the constitutional duties are not discharged by the constitutional functionaries, it is the bounden duty of the Constitutional Courts to make appropriate orders to see that such duties are carried on as ordained by the Constitution of India and incidentally may make several observations to remedy the working of the system, at least in future in the interest of, and for up-keeping constitutional values. The question is whether Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy, the Chief Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri Keshav Rao, the Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh can make such statements, whether they made such statements at all, if made, whether they can be or cannot be made liable under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or whether the Press, Media, telecast misquoted them? It is unknown on what advice these steps were taken by Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy and Sri Keshav Rao. Even if such steps are taken out of political anxiety or anxiousness, these steps are wrong steps and on the ground that these are only reports, the matter cannot be simply brushed aside, since it is a matter concerned with the public confidence in relation to the judicial institutions. Thus the matter assumes lot of importance in the light of protecting constitutional interest and also in the light of public interest too. Thus, this lis, suo motu contempt proceedings and issuance of show cause notices to the persons referred to supra became inevitable. If the press, media, telecast etc., made and reported correct statements of these two specified above, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that it will tend to interfering with the administration of justice, scandalizing or blackmailing the learned Judges. This is nothing short of interfering with the judiciary by unconcerned wings. This is wholly impermissible.

2. This is a Court of record. Article 214 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be High Court for each State. Article 215 of the Constitution of India states that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. In State of U.P. v. Bhatuk ((1978) 2 SCC 102) it was observed that High Court means entire body of Judges appointed to the High Court. Judicial discipline is the strength of this institution. Judicial accountability is the essential facet of this institution. It is unfortunate that the learned Judges are being targeted since the learned Judges are expected to observe discipline. It is really a misfortune in the working of the system. Public to have confidence in the judiciary, common mans faith in this institution is of utmost importance for the up keeping of the functioning of the democracy. Contextual reference or remarks always would be within the domain of the Judge in the decision making. Outside wings h