The court clarified the jurisdiction of a Division Bench to initiate suo motu proceedings for contempt of court and provided an analysis of what constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.

MENON, J.

By this original petition, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court a publication in an evening daily 'Deergaveekshanam', commenting on the proceedings in O.P. No. 5538 of 1985, pending judgment, after a learned judge of this Court had heard arguments, for taking action against the respondents under S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

2. A Division Bench of this Court on 11-7-1985 issued notice to respondents 3 and 4, the Editor and the Publisher of the aforesaid daily. The Division Bench even at that stage found that there was no case against respondents 1 and 2 to initiate contempt action against them. A copy of the evening daily 'Deergaveekshanam' dt. 11-6-1985 wherein the publication appears is produced as Ext. P1. The publication is captioned as a news item that the case against the ministers is likely to be dismissed by the High Court. The news item relates to a writ of quo warranto against three ministers of the Kerala Congress Party, its Chief Whip and a former minister and M.L.A., that came up for admission before a learned Judge of this Court, the previous day. It is stated that the accusations against the Ministers and Leaders of the Kerala Congress Party are based on newspaper reports, devoid of merit and the Party Secretariat had on various occasions denied the alleged call for an agitation against the Central Government at the State Conference of the Party held at Cochin. The Court according to this news item appears to be convinced about the falsity of the accusation and the writ petition is likely to be dismissed.

3. The respondents have filed two counter-affidavits denying that the news item in Ext. P1 amounts to contempt of court within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. It is further stated that the publication was not intended to interfere with the due course of justice and was only a report of the proceedings before this Court in the case against the Ministers and certain other leaders of the Kerala Congress Party. The respondents have also raised a contention against the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court to initiate suo motu proceedings for contempt of court.

4. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, both Art. 215 of the Constitution and S. 15 of the Contempt of Court Act would indicate that the suo motu action to be taken by the High Court for contempt of Court should be initiated by the Full Court consisting of all the Judges of the High Court. As per Art. 215 of the Constitution, "every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself". S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides for the cognizance of criminal contempt. The relevant provision in the Section is extracted below :

"In the case of a criminal contempt ......... the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion ........."

The argument is that the "High Court" means the Chief Justice and all other Judges constituting the High Court under Art. 216 of the Constitution, and a Division Bench is not empowered to take suo motu action for contempt either under Art. 215 of the Constitution or under S. 15 of the Contempt of Court Act. In support of this proposition the learned counsel draws analogy on the wording of cls. 1 and 2 of Art. 233 of the Constitution relating to appointment of District Judges by the Governor of the State "in consultation with the High Court", and in cases of fresh recruitment of candidates as "recommended by the High Court for appointment". It is pointed out that the consultation or recommendation as the case may be is not merely of the Chief Justice, but of the High Court consisting of all the Judges, and their views and opinions are sought for and obtained before a District Judge is appointed under Art. 233 of the Constitution.

5. We do not see any substance in this contention. S. 3 of the Kerala High Court Act (Act 5 of 1959) enumer