S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. It is extremely unfortunate and equally painful that this Bench has to proceed and decide whether the respondent has committed a criminal contempt.

2. The respondent before us has filed number of proceedings and cases in this Court. He relies upon filing of Public Interest Litigations highlighting instances of abuse of discretion by public servants and State Government. He argues them in person. On occasions, he relies on in-depth study of the matters and his overall experience. Such a person is expected to act sensibly and responsibly. However, that is belied by his scurrilous, highly offensive, vicious, intimidatory and malicious allegations against sitting Judges of this Court. We would be failing in our duty if we do not deal with this and in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of the rule of law. (Pritam Pal vs. High Court of MP) 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529.

3. Those familiar with modern scientific advancements in the field of telecommunications and information technology ought to be equally aware of the ill-effects and adverse impact of social media. On his Facebook profile, the respondent has published alleged instances of misdemeanour and misconduct of some sitting and retired Judges of this Court. The words used and the language employed is, for instance “that the Judges have sold justice and there are rates at which bail orders and anticipatory bail orders can be obtained.” This is equated with a Menu Card in a restaurant. He has termed some retired Judges of this Court as 'middlemen'. He says that this Court has managed to push under the carpet, instances of blatant corruption by forbidding or prohibiting use of mobile phones. Thus, the endeavour of the Judges is not to allow the public to access their misdeeds.

4. The gist of the allegations is that Judges of this Court can be managed. That some of the Lady Judges act like prostitutes. That some other retired and sitting Judges are landgrabbers.

5. We are hesitant to give a word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph account of the publications on the respondent's Facebook profile.

6. Pertinently these very materials were referred to in a notice to show cause addressed to the respondent which has been duly served. Upon its receipt, there is absolutely no iota of doubt that the respondent is aware of what he has to meet. In fact, he has not questioned the procedure adopted, particularly insofar as issuance and service of a show cause notice. He was aware of the charge that he has to meet and, therefore, he purports to deal with it by filing affidavits-in-reply.

7. It is such a person we are dealing with. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed several decades back in the case of Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529 that the maxim : 'salus populi suprema lex', that is “the welfare of the people is the supreme law” adequately enunciates the idea of law. This can be achieved only when justice is administered lawfully, judicially without fear or favour and without being hampered and thwarted and this cannot be effected unless respect for it is fostered and maintained. A wrong doer like the respondent who puts himself on occasions and at times on par with advocates can hardly be heard to complain. He is mindful of the fact that the proceedings in contempt have to be conducted by following a summary procedure. The power of this Court to punish for contempt is not restricted or trammeled by ordinary legislations. This Court derives the same from Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The inherent power thus derived is elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit. In Pritam Pal and later cases, it has been adequately and amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that so long as the gist of the specific allegations is made clear or otherwise