The judgment establishes the principle that criticism of courts within permissible limits should not lower the authority of the courts or scandalize them, and that the bona fides of the critic should be considered.

1. Quite often a judge comes across a case which has no precedent. But rarely has a case as unique as the one before us arisen in any court.

2. Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer, formerly a judge of this Court, later a judge of the Supreme Court was one of the distinguished guests at the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of the Court held in October-November, 1981. At a symposium organised on that occasion on "Approach of Judicial Reforms", Sri. Krishna Iyer as a main speaker addressed the assembled audience. One of the judges of this Court Sri. G. Viswanatha Iyer was then in the chair. Sri. Vincent Panikulangara, the petitioner is said to have attended that symposium and according to him the speech delivered by Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer amounted to scandalisation of the authority of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and therefore Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer is guilty of criminal contempt. He moved the Advocate General for sanction which the Advocate General gave.

3. The offending passages, according to the petitioner, are those stated in Para.8 of the petition. We will extract that paragraph here:

"8. The speech of the respondent contained among other things the following expressions against the functioning of the judiciary.

a. "One day the people of this country will rise and say that we don't want this magnificent red stone edifice on the Curzon Road because it is seen to be counter productive and in turn the High Courts".

b. "When property rights are affected in R. C. Kooper's case the judge's heart began to bleed."

C. "The whole question is whether the judiciary live down its partiality towards the propertariat and cultivate an affection for the proletariat."

d. "And in this country the Jesuses are getting crucified and the Barbases are very much upheld, thanks perhaps to the judiciary."

e. "That they (judiciary) have not been ordinarily influenced by the executive or the legislature". f. "In fact as an insider there are many things I know which I should not mention in public".

g. "Our whole judicial approach has a certain independence from all civilised behaviour." h. "In fact to speak very frankly, the Indian judiciary is non est."

4. To understand the real import of any statement it is necessary to understand the context in which it is made. Evidently Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer seems to have made his speech extempore.

5. We do not have the benefit of appreciating the setting in which the impugned statements were made by Sri. Krishna Iyer. We are only pointing out that had there been a report of the whole speech it would have been easier to understand and assess fairly the objective as well as impact of the impugned statements.

6. Is Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer guilty of contempt? Is there a case to issue notice to him to show cause?

7. Before we consider the question whether there is a case for issue of notice to Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer let us advert to the problem referred to as unique by us in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. Any judge who knows a party in a case does not sit to try the case. If such a case comes up posted before him he avoids the case. The matter is reported to the Chief Justice for posting before another Bench. No occasion had arisen when there was a case in this court which none of the judges of this Court could hear for the reason that the party in the case was known to all the Judges. Sri. V. R. Krishna Iyer being formerly a judge of this Court, is well known personally to all the judges, most of whom, if not all, are his good friends. Even after Sri. Krishna Iyer left the Court he has been keeping in touch with the Court, naturally because this is his home State and perhaps also because he was the most mobile judge in India. He is reported to be keeping as busy, if not more as before even after his retirement. If personal acquaintance or friendship with a party disqualifies a judge from hearing the case, then the posting of the case before a Bench of this Court is a problem. This explains the delay in posting thi