The judgment emphasizes the need for fair and responsible criticism of the judiciary, the understanding of judicial constraints, and the availability of legal remedies for grievances with court orders.

JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J.

This Contempt Case has been filed on 10-3-1993 by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, inviting the High Court's attention to certain remarks made by the respondent, Sri K. P. Viswanathan, Minister of Forests, Government of Kerala, on 6-3-1993 while inaugurating a seminar on 'Agastyavanam' biological park in Y.M.C.A. hall at Ernakulam. The function was organised by the Forest Department, Kerala Government. On the next day, i.e., 7-3-1993, the speech, as recorded by the news-reporters, was published in various newspapers. The 'Mathrubhumi', Malayalam Daily (Cochin Edition) in its report, Ext. P. 1, as explained in the Contempt Petition reported that 'the Minister and another person (said to be the Mayor of Cochin) were having grievance against High Court Judges, in that several decisions of the High Court Judges put the Forest Department to great trouble according to the strong language used by the Minister. In spite of deep thinking, he was not able to understand the motive behind these decisions and that what the Minister implied was that the decisions contravens justice'.

2. A Division Bench of this Court took up this matter on 12-3-1993 and first thought of verifying what exactly the Minister said. The learned Advocate General was to verify the particulars and file a statement as per R. 9 of the Contempt of Court Rules. Thereafter, the required statement signed by the Addl. Advocate General, Shri. Beeran, was filed on 1-4-1993. Then the Division Bench felt that 'considering the nature of the controversy and the seriousness of the matter, the Minister of Forests himself should file a detailed affidavit explaining his stand in the matter'. Thereafter, the Minister filed his affidavit on 3-6-1993, with Annexures.

3. The petition came up before us on 11-6-1993 when we heard the petitioner-Advocate in person and the learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri. V. K. Beeran. It may be noted that the Contempt Case was filed on 10-3-1993 and the Division Bench passed the first order on 12-3-1993 and then the Minister appears to have approached the paper on 16-3-1993 for a clarification which was published on 17-3-1993, as stated below.

4. In the counter affidavit, the Minister has stated that the report in the Cochin Edition of 'Mathrubhumi' dated 8-3-1993 is incorrect and misleading, that after coming to known of this, he got a clarification issued to the Editor on 16-3-1993 as per Ext. R1(a) and that as per the said clarification, a report was again published in Mathrubhumi on 17-3-1993 as per Ext. R1(b). According to the Minister, the correct report is as published in the Mathrubhumi on 7-3-1993 (perhaps, the other Edition), i.e., Ext. R1(c). It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ext. R1(c) does not show that the Minister used any offensive language against the Courts and that that should be preferred to Ext. P1 version of the same paper in the Cochin Edition. It is contended that he had not used 'storage language' nor did he use the word 'motive' (i.e., motive behind the judgment) but was only saying that he did not understand the 'logic' behind the judgment. He was, it seems, only mentioning about the difficulties faced by the Forest Department consequent to High Court orders in public interest cases. He states:

"I mentioned two specific cases filed in the Honourable High Court, i.e., the case relating to the extraction of timber from the Ambalavayal Ex. Servicemen Colony in Wyned and the case relating to the extraction of timber from the submergible area of Chimony Dam Reservoir. In the first case mentioned above, as result of the case, the work of extraction and supply of timber had to be rendered and as a result of the retender, there was an increase of more than Rs. 1 crore in the tender amount. Thus apart from the delay in resource mobilisation Government will have to pay a higher amount to the contractor for the work of extraction and supply. In the second case mentioned above, the