The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Advocate General's refusal of consent for contempt proceedings is not justiciable, and the invocation of Article 215 and Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by a petitioner may not be maintainable. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the publication complained of must create a risk of seriously impeding or prejudicing the course of justice to warrant contempt proceedings.

BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

The question raised in this proceeding filed invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 10, 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is whether this proceeding is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that what is alleged is a criminal contempt of the subordinate Court and the sanction sought for by the petitioner before the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 10 thereof was refused by the Advocate General. The Registry returned the papers to the petitioner by seeking a clarification whether the contempt of Court case is maintainable in view of the dismissal of the petition for sanction by the learned Advocate General. Counsel for the petitioner represented the petition with the endorsement that the sanction of the Advocate General was not necessary in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. Pritish Nandi, (O.P. No. 7352 of 1985* (Contempt)). Counsel also stated that if that explanation was not acceptable the matter may be sent to the Court for decision. The Deputy Registrar noticing that this was a petition under S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and further noticing that in view of the decision in Nagappan v. Mani, (1995) 2 Ker LT 347 : (1996 Cri LJ 134) initiation of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by any person without the written consent of the Advocate General was not entertainable, posted the matter before the Court. Since the question involved was one in which there were apparently conflicting observations in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, this Court also heard, even at this stage, counsel for the respondent. Since the submissions were based on binding decisions of the Supreme Court not referred to by the Division Bench in Nagappan v. Mani, (1995) 2 Ker LT 347 : (1996 Cri LJ 134), it was felt unnecessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench to resolve the conflict.

2. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt. Sections 3 to 6 indicate what do not amount to contempt. Section 7 of the Act saves some of the publications referred to in that Section. Section 10 of the Act confers power on the High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts. Section 14 of the Act enables the Court to award punishment if the contempt is in the face of the High Court. Cognisance of criminal contempt in other cases is provided for in Section 15 of the Act. It is provided therein that in the case of a criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 of the Act, the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Section 15(2) of the Act provides that in the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate Court, High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate General. Section 17 prescribes the procedure after cognizance is taken and Section 18 of the Act provides that every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Act shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Section 20 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for initiation of any proceeding for contempt by Court either on its own motion or otherwise. Under Rule 8 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, procedure to be followed by the Subordinate Court while making reference is laid down and the procedure thereafter is also laid down.

3. In the case on hand, contempt alleged is that of a subordinate Court. The claim is that by publication of a pamphlet marked Annexure-A, the first respondent had attempted to prejudice the due course of a judicial proceeding and this amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of the Act. On this basis,