( 1 ) SOME questions of vital public importance have arisen in this petition. On this point at least the learned Counsels appearing for rival parties appear to be ad idem. The questions are: Does it behove to the lawyers as a class to resort to strike and if any one publicly comments and publishes the same in a rather unhappy or unpleasant language would it amount to defamation of an individual member of the class of lawyers? Further if the insinuating remarks are directed against the entire class of lawyers would it amount to an offence of defamation so as to attract the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code?

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant since September 23, 1983 the lawyers in Gujarat were protesting against the interference of the Government in judiciary. On account of the agitation they ceased to participate in Court proceedings and resorted to Satyagraha. As stated in the Resolution passed on February 2, 1984 by the Executive Committee of the State Bar Council of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the Bar Council) which is produced on record the agitation was with respect to the appointment and transfer of Chief Justices of High Courts. Sometime in the third week of October 1983 lawyers decided to extend their strike upto November 6, 1983 Thereupon the petitioner herein wrote printed an editorial Whither the Dispute-Brokers (Kajia Dalals) KAJIYA DALALO KAYA MARGE in the issue of JAY-HIND Daily dated October 22, 1983

( 3 ) THE editorial is in Gujarati and when translated into English reads as follows: whither the Dispute-Brokers (KAJIA DALALS) (1) the controversial agitation conducted by lawyers in Gujarat for the last several days has taken in new turn since the lawyers have decided to extend the strike upto 6th November. Leaving aside for the time being going into the merits of the question which is the subject-matter of the agitation the question does arise namely whether the strike of the lawyers is behoving to them? lawyers have eroded their own image by resorting to a prolonged strike. It has reduced respect for them amongst their clients. In reality who stands to lose on account of such strike? In a sense lawyers are brokers of disputes. (2) To the extent lawyers are absent the lesser will be the disputes. (3) People then will be inclined to have their disputes settled by their own mutual efforts. Where was the system of lawyers prevalent in the past on a wider scale? even today in some regions disputes are being settled through peoples courts without the presence of lawyers. If the strike goes on being prolonged by lawyers like this a stage may be reached when the people would not find it necessary to retain a lawyer at all. Is it not that brokers of disputes are necessary only where there are disputes? (4) In reality lawyers have been encouraging disputes more and more by giving impetus to the disputes. (5) Lawyers may be interested in disputes arising between the parties. However continuous strike of lawyers is making the clients see for themselves what is what ? such brokers of disputes exhibit childishness or irresponsibility like going on a long strike on a problem with which lawyers are not concerned directly or indirectly a question would arise how far the lawyers will be protecting the interests of their clients. (6) it is unfortunate matter that these dispute-brokers have taken a wrong path (7) by disregarding their duties and obligations towards law towards the clients and towards the society. People will feel inclined to settle their legal problems by themselves in view of such tendency on the part of lawyers. As far as possible they will avoid approaching lawyers. In other words lawyers are causing injury to their own interests. If lawyers continue to be have like this by clinging to their caprices or arbitrary ideas without caring for the interest of the society they will stand to lose their position and status (8) but then it would be too late. Even now it is