ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one Abhishek Bandyopadhyay, a Member of Parliament in India, commented in an open forum to the effect that a fraction of the judiciary was acting in cohorts and ordering CBI investigations in every case. It was further commented, it is alleged, that they are even ordering stay of ongoing murder probes.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel that the undertone was to ridicule the judiciary, thereby scandalising the Court. It is submitted further that by way of the said statements, the person in question, who stands on the footing of a Member of Parliament and has a public audience by virtue of his office, tried to malign the judiciary and undermine its dignity.

3. Upon going through the allegations made in the affidavits in support of the prayer for issuing a suo motu contempt against the said Member of Parliament, we do not find sufficient reason to adopt the extreme measure of issuing a suo motu rule of contempt for the following reasons :

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly stipulates - 'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, o