The publication of articles in a newspaper that are critical of a court judgment does not constitute contempt of court if the articles are fair comment and do not pose an imminent danger of interference with the administration of justice.

U.C. Banerjee, J.

Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected to sub-serve the ends of justices as regards the maintenance of majesty of law.

2. In India Law of Contempt has been codified in order to allow the Law Courts to uphold the dignity of Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act has been engrafted in the Statute Book, inter alia, for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of confidence in the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is however, undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts and as such it must be exercised with proper care and caution and only in cases of larger interest for the due administration of Justice.

3. In this matter a suo motu Rule of Contempt was issued by this Court during the course of hearing of an application for stay by reason of publication of certain articles in a local Bengali daily newspaper "AJJKAL".

4. At this juncture, however, certain factual aspect ought to be noted.

5. As against the order of the learned Trial Judge quashing a criminal proceedings pending against a Police Officer belonging to the Calcutta Police, the complainant preferred an appeal before this Court. There is no manner of doubt that considerable amount of public interest has been aroused in the matter and the Press also played a significant role. On the factual score it appears that the petitioner-complainant lodged a complaint before the Magistrate by reason of alleged in human torture on the part of the Police Officer on the complainant whilst in police custody as a MISA detinue. The learned trial Judge of the Court below on a writ petition filed by the accused, however, upon consideration of certain factors released the accused and quashed the proceeding immediately after the judgment, however, there was substantial amount of public debate on the score, some criticising the judgment, some, however, in favour of the judgment. An appeal from the order of the Court below was preferred and during the course of hearing of the stay petition before this Court, a publication containing articles was produced before this Court. This Court took very strong exception, since freedom of Press and freedom of speech though being the two gigantic pillars of our democratic set up, but law of the land would not permit a simultaneous trial by the Newspaper. The articles contained in the daily issue at that Juncture was thought of though prima facie, to be contumacious in nature and amounted to condalisation of the Court. By reason of the above however, a suo motu Rule of Contempt was issued by this Bench against the Editor of the local Bengali Daily "AJJKAL" together with the contributors of the articles.

6. In order to appropriate the contentions raised the rule issued by this Court ought to be noted here. The Rule reads as follows :-

“Whereas it has been brought to the notice of this Court about the publication made by local daily issue of “AJJKAL” of the seventeenth day of August one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight, City Edition that apart from the report of the case in Appeal no. of 1988, Matter no. 999 of 1988 (Smt. Archana Guha v. Ranjit Guha Neogi alias Runu Guha Neogi) which appears at page 7 of the said issue there is a full page discussion of the merits of the said case at page 6 of the said articles of which three articles written by Sri Debesh Roy, residing at BE 179, Salt Lake, Calcutta-64, Goutam Chattopadhyay residing at 2, Palm Place, Calcutta 17 and Subhasis Moitra whose place of work is at 7, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta at the office of "Pratikshar'; respectively have been published in the said issue of local Daily “AJJKAL”, City Edition dealing with the issues now being considered in this Court And whereas it further appearing prima facie that such publication as aforesaid in the said issue interferes with the administration of justice and lowers the dignity of this Court And as such