The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial pronouncements being judicial in nature and not departing from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. It also highlighted the tests to be applied in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities before courts of law.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court rejecting the appellant's application under S.561A, Criminal Procedure Code for exjunction of certain remarks made against him in the High Court's Order dated 20 111973, in Criminal Misc. Petition No 976 of 1973.

2. The appellant is a member of the Kerala Judicial Service, while the respondent herein is an Advocate practising at Ernakulam. On 14 81973, the appellant was working as District Magistrate, Ernakulam. One Kamalasanan, who was an accused in C. C. Nos. 216 and 217 of 1973 pending before him, was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties in the like amount. The two sureties were Kamaleswaran, the brother of the accused, and Sri Thankappan Nair. Thankappan's address was given as "businessman, son of Parameswaran Pillai, Thambanoor, Trivandrum". The affidavit filed by Thankappan, while offering himself as surety, was attested by Sri. A. K. Srinivasan, Advocate stating "solemnly affirmed at Ernakulam on this 14th day of August 1973 and signed before me who is personally known to me."

3. The above cases stood posted for examination of the accused under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when on that date the cases were called for hearing, the accused was absent. His counsel Shri. Srinivasan appeared and represented that although he had no information from the accused, who had to come from Trivandrum yet he was expecting him to reach the court in time. The appellant (District Magistrate) thereupon ordered cancellation of the bail bonds and directed issue of notices, to the surety under S.514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon him to show cause before 16101973 why the terms of the surety bonds providing for forfeiture of the sum of Rs. 1,000 be not enforced. The notices issued to the Surety, Thankappan Nair were returned unserved whereupon on the 17th October, 1973 the appellant issued a non bailable warrant for the arrest of the surety. On the following day, the appellant issued a notice to Sri. A.K. Srinivasan, Advocate which ran as under:

"Ernakulam District Magistrate's Court No. M. C. 106 and M. C. 107 of 1973. Notice for Shri A. K. Srinivasan, Advocate

The abovementioned cases are being fixed for hearing on 3111973 at 11 A.M. You are required to appear before the Court.

By Order,

Sd/

18th October, 1973. Sheristadar."

4. It may be mentioned here that in the proceedings initiated under S.514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the two cases, Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate was not the duly constituted attorney for the Surety, Thankappan.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate filed Crl. M. P. 967 of 1973 before the High Court of Kerala under S.561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the appellant be directed to withdraw the notice dated 18101973, on the ground that the issue of notice was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court because (a) There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to issue such a notice to command the Advocate's appearance when he is not connected either as a witness or a party or otherwise with the proceedings relating to cancellation of bailbands; (b) The notice was issued to humiliate him and the Bar since the latter had passed a resolution on 21-7-1973, protesting against the improper and discourteous treatment meted out by the Magistrate to the members of the Bar.

6. The learned judge of the High Court before whom this petition came up for hearing, by an order dated 2111973, called for a report from the appellant by 5-11 1973 regarding the allegations contained in the Advocate's petition add particularly as to under which provision of law and under what circumstances he bad thought it fit to issue a notice to the Advocate requiring him to appear before him on 3111973. The appellant thereupon submitted the report to the High Court, the material part of which