JUDGMENT

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. - In this matter the Rule was issued by me as Chief Justice of this Court after consultation with the learned Judges in consequence of two articles which appeared in the "Amrita Bazar Patrika" newspaper on the 18th and 2.2nd of May 1917, respectively. The Eule was directed to Tarit Kanti Biswas, the printer and publisher of the newspaper, and to Moti Lal Ghose, Golap Lal Ghose and Pijush Kanti Ghose, Directors, and Golap Lal Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Ghose, the Managers of the Company called the "Amrita Bazar Patrika Ltd.,"having its registered office at No. 2 Anando Chatterjee's Lane, Calcutta, and the Rule called upon them to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by them by unlawfully publishing the two articles concerning the High Court and the Chief Justice in his administration thereof.

2. The respondents to the Rule hare all appeared by learned Counsel.

3. The first question which it is neees-sary to consider is whether these articles or either of them constitute a contempt of Court. The appeals from Mr. Justice Greaves, to wbioh both the articles refer, are the appeals in the three cases mentioned at the head of the Rule. These cases were decided by Greaves, J., sitting on the Original Side, and the appeals in which the Improvement Trust were respondents were about to be heard by the Court hearing appeals from the Original Side at the time of the publication of the the two articles in May 1917.

4. The first article is as follows: There is a mischievous rumour afloat which should he contradicted. It is stated that a vigorous attempt is being made to get up a Bench to consider the appeal on the judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves in connection with the acquisition of surplus land by the Calcutta Improvement Trust according to somebody's choice. We do not believe that it is possible for any one, far less the Chairman of the Trust, to secure a Bench after his own heart as a counterpoise to the Mooker.jee and Cuming Bench. We are sure the interest of every rate-payer is safe in the hands of the Hon'ble Judges, and we do not think that any official of the Trust can go so far."

5. The reference to the "Mookerjee and Cuming Bench" is to an appeal which was disposed of by Mookerjee, J., and Mr. Cuming when he was temporarily acting as a Judge of the High Court in August 1916, when the decision was against the Improvement Trust.

6. The second article is as follows: Something like consternation prevails on account of the proposed new constitution of the appellate Bench of the Calcutta High Court before which appeals against the awards of the Improvement Trust are to be heard. It is known to the reader how this Bench was originally composed of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cuming, and how latterly it has come to be presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Mr. Justioe Woodroffe. Rumour has it that for purposes of hearing Improvement Trust Appeals the Bench is going to be strengthened by the appointment of Mr. Justice Chitty. Now what neither the public nor ourselves can understand is this special arrangement for such a Special Bench. If it is contended that two Hon'ble Judges of the highest Court in the land are not competent to decide in appeal cases in which the Improvement Trust is concerned, a contention, however, which we do not believe the Chief Justioe will care to advance, why should there be a Special Bench of three and not a Full Bench of five, on which at least two Indian Judges could find seats? As a matter of fact, as landowners in Calcutta are mostly Indians and as Indian Judges are likely to know more of conditions, practices, etc., prevailing here, it is but meet that the Appellate Bench in the present circumstances should be so composed as to associate Indian Judges with their European colleagues. The withdrawal of Sir Asutosh has given rise to rather unsavoury impres