The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imminence of proceedings in a court for the purposes of the offence of contempt of court must depend upon the circumstances of each case. It emphasized the need to prove various other facts to establish the imminence of proceedings in a particular case and highlighted the duty of a free press to comment on topics of public interest while preserving citizens' right to have a fair trial in an atmosphere free of prejudice or prepossession.

1. In this appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the Kerala High Court two questions arise: (1) Whether on the day when the appellant, A. K. Gopalan, made the statement complained of or when it was published in "Deshabhimani" any proceedings in a court could be said to be imminent; and (2) whether this statement amounts to contempt of court.

2. The facts in brief are that on September 11, 1S67, the ruling parties in Kerala State staged what is called 'Kerala Bandh'. A serious incident took place on that day during the course of which one C. P. Karunakaran lost his life at a place called Kuttoor. A first information report was lodged on that very day. On September 12, 1967 the first information report was transferred to another police station. On September 20,1967, the appellant, A. K. Gopalan, made the following statement:

"Tearful story

"It was the story of a young man who had to sacrifice his life to the naked goondaism of Congressmen, that was heard from the trembling lips of so many people in Kuttoor. Had this tragedy occurred in the course of a sudden fight one could have understood it. But what I was able to make out was that it was in prosecution of a deliberate conspiracy to commit murder. It appears that a prominent Congress leader of the Cannanore District had given instructions for this the previous day. It was as a result of being pounced upon and stabbed while he was in a peaceful and disciplined manner calling for the observance of the Bandh by the closure of shops that Comrade C. P. Karunakaran suffered martyrdom. Comrade Kunhikannan who was with him also suffered serious injuries. The police have seized an unlicensed loaded gun and other weapons from the shop of a congressman at the scene of occurrence.

Murder too was planned.

Is it not to be inferred from all this that there was a pre-arranged plan to commit murder? The enlightened people of the locality were determined to press forward to the chosen destination of that class for whom Comrade Karunakaran has sacrificed his life."

3. On September 23,1967, K. P. Noordeen was arrested along with his two brothers. On September 24,1967 the Magistrate remanded the accused to police custody. In its issue dated September 25, 1967, the Malayalam Daily newspaper called "Deshabhimani" of which P. Govinda Pillai, the second appellant, was the editor and M. Govindankutty was the printer, printed the statement which we have re-produced above. On September 29,1967, all the three accused were produced before the Magistrate. On October 5,1967, bail was refused by the District Magistrate but was granted by the Sessions Judge. On November 1,1967, Noordeen filed the petition under S.3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act (32 of 1952) impleading the three respondents, A. K.. Gopalan, P. Govinda Pillai and M. Govindankutty.

4. The High Court held all the three respondents guilty of contempt of court and convicted them accordingly. The High Court imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-on the first respondent and of administering an admonition to respondents 2 and 3. The High Court discharged respondents two and three after due admonition. The appellants A. K. Gopalan and P. Govinda Pillai having secured certificate of fitness under Art.134 (I) (c) the appeal is now before us.

5. This Court in Surendra Mohanty v. State of Orissa Crl. A. 107 of 1956 examined the question whether the publication of a statement at a time when the only step taken was the recording of first information report under S.154, Cr. P. C, could be contempt of court. As the judgment in this case has not been reported we think that we should reproduce the main portion of the judgment. Kapur. J., speaking on behalf of the court, observed:

"Before the publication of the comments complained of, only the first information report was filed in which though some persons were mentioned as being suspected of being responsible for causing the breach in the bund, there was no definite allegation against any one of th