S.C.Misra, J.

1. This proceeding has been started against Sri Basanta Chandra Ghosh, an Advocate of this Court, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in respect of an article published in the latest morning edition of the Searchlight, a Patna daily, in its issue of March 8, 1959. The article was published under the caption "Recommendations of Law Commission". The High Court took notice of the article and accordingly the above rule was issued on the 7th of April, 1959. The article deals with certain matters relating to the judicial administration of the High Court. The occasion for the article was the publication of the report of the Law Commission appointed by the Government of India whose report came out duly and was published in the press.

2. The writer, who described himself as "Basant Chandra Ghose", made comments on the judicial administration of the High Court in various matters. In some of his comments he referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission with approval and in certain other matters he expressed his disagreement with the recommendations of the Law Commission but, on the whole, the article appeared to the High Court to be an independent animadversion on the judicial administration of the High Court with occasional reference to the recommendations of the Law Commission.

In the notice issued to him, the following passages from the article were specifically mentioned as constituting contempt of Court, specially the Patna High Court, although reference was made to the tone of the entire article as being derogatory to the dignity, independence and impartiality of its judicial administration. The impugned passages run thus : "Very few in this country acquainted with the working of the judiciary would honestly differ from the report of the Law Commission on the unsatisfactory method of recruitment of Judges, the lowering of standard of judiciary and selection of Judges on consideration other than fitness as also with that part of the report which deals with the executive influence on the judiciary". ......... The recommendation for preliminary hearing of Article 32 petition and of enlarging the powers of a Single Judge are retrogatory and cannot be accepted by independent thinking people in the profession. Our experience in some of the High Courts where most of the Writ applications are dismissed at the admission stage and where most of the Civil and Criminal Appeals including First Appeals are heard by Single Judges, has not been very happy and encouraging. More discouraging has been the innovation of hearing in full of Letters Patent Appeals in admission (there being no provision for the same in law) and of Writ Applications with notice to the Advocate General and in full at the admission stage which have resulted in stultification of justice. Instead of one there have been two full hearings in Article 226 matters in some of the High Courts, where these applications are heard with notice to the Advocate General at the admission stage, the result being in more cases than one statements made without affidavit even without instruction by the State Counsel are considered good grounds for rejection at the preliminary hearing, even though, at times it has been found that such statements were contrary to records.

We had expected the Law Commission to say something about the nature of the hearing of these petitions under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has recently condemned the procedure adopted in some High Courts in disposing of application for writ of certiorari without the records. It is surprising that the Law Commission was not aware that in some High Courts prayers for calling for records in application for writ of certiorari or prohibition have been curtly rejected and what would have appeared from the records themselves have been disposed of on vague affidavits made on behalf of the State of Bihar on the simple ground that the facts ar