J. Chelameswar, C.J.

1. This matter is listed before us pursuant to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (J. Chelameswar, C.J.) is a member.

2. The above-mentioned order came to be passed by the Court pursuant to a note made by the Registry dated 2.7.2010 in an un-numbered contempt case. The said contempt case is filed with a prayer as follows:

"The petitioner only begs leave to submit that this is an eminently fit case for proceeding against the 1st respondent under the Contempt of Court Act notwithstanding the absence of Advocate General's consent. In case it is found that consent of the Advocate General is necessary to maintain this petition suo motu contempt action may be initiated against the 1st respondent or permission may be granted to the petitioner for moving for consent of the Advocate General. The petitioner most respectfully prays that 1st respondent may be punished for the Contempt of Court committed by him by the imposition of imprisonment as provided for under Sec.12 of the Act".

3. On receipt of the papers, the Registry entertained certain doubts regarding the maintainability of the contempt case. Relevant for the present purpose is -

(i) whether a contempt case such as the one sought to be presented before this Court, which is not either moved by the Advocate General or by a person after duly obtaining consent of the Advocate General can be placed before the High Court on the judicial side or should it be considered by the Chief Justice on the administrative side as opined by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 19.02.2007 in an un-numbered Cont.Case (Crl.) of 2007 = 2007 (1) KLT 897 [One Earth One Life v. Sindhu Joy] ;

(ii) whether it is competent for the Chief Justice or a Judge nominated by him thereupon to take a decision whether a contempt case should be registered and placed before the appropriate Bench for preliminary hearing; or

(iii) whether the Chief Justice is required to cause the matter to be placed before the Full Court for its opinion as to whether a suo motu criminal contempt case is to be initiated on the basis of such papers as is opined by another Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu Contempt [2009 (1) KLT 695].

4. In the light of the said doubt expressed by the Registry, the Division Bench also noticed that another decision of this Court reported in Sukumaran v. Jacob [1986 KLT 32 (DB)] was also not noticed by the Division Bench in deciding 2009 (1) KLT 695 and, therefore, by the order dated 3.8.2010 thought it fit that the matter be considered by a Full Bench of this Court, to have an authoritative pronouncement.

5. The brief factual background in which all these questions arise is as follows: The petitioner is a lawyer practicing in Thiruvananthapuram Courts in the State of Kerala. One Shri.M.V.Jayarajan, who is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala, is alleged to have made certain objectionable speech against a judgment of this Court and a specific attack on two sitting Judges of this Court who authored the said judgment. The alleged speech by the above-mentioned Mr.Jayarajan, it appears, is published in two vernacular dailies, called "Malayala Manorama" and "Mathrubhoomi" dated 27.06.2010. It is also alleged in the petition that the alleged utterances are also telecast through visual media. The Editors of the newspapers and the Companies responsible for the above-mentioned telecast are also sought to be brought in as respondents to this proceedings. The substance of the above petition is that the utterances made by the above-mentioned Mr.Jayarajan and the publication of the same is "deliberate and wilful interference in the free flow of justice" and constitutes contempt of Court, punishable both under Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971).

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri.N.Dharmadan and the learned Advocate General Shri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad.

7. A numbe