The publication of injurious misrepresentations concerning parties to pending proceedings, which could affect the course of justice and prejudice fair trial, amounts to contempt of court, regardless of the respondent's intention or the publication reaching the court.

1. This is an application under S.3 of the Contempt of Courts Act - Central Act XXXII of 1952 - against the four respondents. First respondent being the writer of the impugned publication; the second respondent the Managing Editor; the third respondent the Chief Editor; and the fourth respondent the Printer and Publisher of the Malayalam daily newspaper'Malayali'.

2. In the issue of the paper dated 19th April, 1963 there appeared a publication under the heading ""IRD Ex. P-1 is the copy of the said publication. Kunchacko referred to therein is admitted to be the first respondent.

3. The facts leading up to the publication are as follows: The first respondent was served with a notice by the District Collector as Tax Recovery Officer, Alleppey calling upon him to appear and show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison in execution of the certificates for recovery of the arrears of income-tax. The first respondent then filed O.P. 819 of 1963 before the High Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash the notice marked Ex. R-1. The District Collector as Tax Recovery Officer was made a party to the original petition. There was also an application for interim injunction and an interim order was passed on 15th April 1963. When the case was thus pending in court, the first respondent who was the petitioner in the original petition made this publication making various allegations against the Collector and imputing personal spite and malice in the action taken by him. The Advocate General has moved this court for action to be taken against the respondents. It is stated that the impugned publication during the pendency of the original petition is calculated to prejudice the mind of the court against the District Collector and is likely to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the legal process of the court. It is further stated that this article would amount to scandalising the District Collector who as the Tax Recovery Officer conducting proceedings for the recovery of the tax is a court and a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of initiating proceedings by way of contempt.

4. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is contended that the District Collector in his capacity as Tax Recovery Officer is not a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of S.3(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and it is also stated that in publishing the article there was no attempt to prejudice the court against the Tax Recovery Officer or to interfere or hamper with the administration of justice. The first respondent has, however, filed a statement expressing regret and tendering an unconditional apology for having made the publication. Respondents 2 to 4 also appeared in court and on their behalf their advocate has filed a statement tendering an unconditional apology.

5. The first question that we have to decide is whether the publication amounts to contempt. Now, it is well settled that abusing and vilifying parties to a pending proceeding in relation to the proceeding, amounts to contempt. In this connection we might refer to the dictum of Lord Hardwicke in Re Read and Huggonson (1742) 2 Atk. 469 where it was observed as follows:

"Nothing is more incumbent upon courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented; nor is there anything of more pernicious consequence, than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in the causes, before the cause is finally heard ... There may be...a contempt of this court in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here ...there cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters."

6. To the same effect is the decision in In re The William Thomas Shipping Co. (1930) 2 Ch. 368, where it was held that the publication of i