IMPORTANT POINT
Any citizen interested in upholding the rule of law is entitled as of right to approach subordinate court concerned seeking reference for contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

Shaji P. Chaly, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the Court of Session, Ernakulam Division in Crl.M.P No.351 of 2018 in SC No.662 of 2016, in a contempt proceedings, and referred the matter to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

3. Petitioner is a legal practitioner with 18 years of standing, who claims to have appeared in several Courts throughout India. It is also stated that, he always holds all courts with respect and regard, and till date, petitioner has not made any comment or observation about any court in a disparaging or disrespectful manner.

4. Petitioner appeared in S.C.No.662 of 2016 on the files of the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam. That was a case which attracted State-wide attention with an incident related to a murder of 30 year old law student. One migrant labourer from Assam was the accused and after trial, the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to death, by judgment dated 13.12.2017.

5. Since the case had attracted wide attention among the people, the media including electronic media was meticulously following the case at every stage, and the court had forbidden them from attending the trial. Petitioner, after the pronouncement of the judgment and sentence, came out of the court, and a cluster of media persons rushed to him for his reaction about the judgment. According to the petitioner, he did not make any disparaging reference against the Sessions Judge, but only informed the media that he proposes to file an appeal, as the judgment, according to him, suffers from various errors. The print media has reported the comments of the petitioner not strictly in conformity or the exact words spoken by him. Though the petitioner had never made any disrespectful remarks about the Principal District Judge, Ernakulam, one of the lawyers who had a grouse against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein, filed an application under Sec.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging contempt against the petitioner and seeking reference to the High Court.

6. On receipt of the same, petitioner was issued with a notice by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and the petition was numbered as Crl.M.P No.351 of 2018. Petitioner entered appearance and submitted a detailed defence statement raising various contentions including lack of competence of the applicant before the Court of Sessions and the total un-sustainability of the petition before the Court of Sessions. However, the Court of Sessions has passed an order on 16.03.2018, referring the matter to the High Court of Kerala under Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, for proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.

7. The case advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act by the 2nd respondent and the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam are all tainted with illegalities and irregularities and therefore, the reference is illegal and arbitrary.

8. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

9. As is discussed above, the sole question to be considered by this Court is, whether any manner of interference is possible in Ext.P4 reference order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. A reference to Sec.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be worthwhile in this regard, which read thus:—

“15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.—(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or o