Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J.

This contempt case was preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Registry did not number the case since no consent of the Advocate General as provided under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was obtained for filing the contempt case. On a request made by the counsel this matter has been posted before us for orders. In paragraph 9 of the contempt case it is stated that the petitioner has not obtained the consent of the Advocate General as envisaged under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, since it may delay the matter and the respondents are continuing with the process of scandalizing this court and the situation warrants immediate interference. Further, counsel also submitted that even if no consent was obtained from the Advocate General this court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India have got sufficient powers to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the respondents for scandalizing this Hon'ble Court and to punish them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the interest of justice. Counsel submitted that the conduct of the respondents in symbolically impeaching the Chief Justice of this Court and extraditing him after conducting a mock trial amounts to interference with the administration of justice undermining the dignity and prestige of this institution warranting immediate interference by this court.

2. We may first examine the sustainability or otherwise of the objection made by the registry that this contempt case is not maintainable without following the procedure laid down under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act. Admittedly, no consent of the Advocate General was obtained as per section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The question that is germane for consideration in this case is whether the permission of the Advocate General is a mandatory requirement for moving this court under the Contempt of Court Act. Before examining the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Contempt of Court (High Court) Rules 1988 which are extracted hereunder for easy reference.

"15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases:-

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by--

(a) the Advocate-General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, or

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation:- In this section, the expression "Advocate General" means,-

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate General of the State or any other States for which the High Court has been established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

A perusal of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15(1) makes it clear that in the case of criminal contempt the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate Gene