V. Ramkumar, J.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

In this case initiated suo motu under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short) the respondent, M.V. Jayarajan, Ex-M.L.A. and a member of the State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is called upon to answer a charge that on 26.6.2010 he made a public speech at Kannur making discreditable and denigrating remarks against the Judges of the High Court who rendered Ext.C5 final judgment dated 23.6.2010 and the said speech was reported in the print and visual media and that the respondent thereby committed "criminal contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) and punishable under Section 12 thereof.

POST INSTITUTIONAL IMBROGLIO

2. This case was originally instituted as a petition for contempt filed under Rule 3 (c) of the Rules by one Advocate P. Rahim but without the consent in writing of the Advocate General as enjoined by Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. Since the Contempt Petition was not one filed with the written consent of the Advocate General, it could only be treated as an "information" within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rules and was liable to be placed before the Chief Justice or such other Judge as may be designated by him on the administrative side, to consider whether it was expedient or proper to take action under the Act as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. That was the interpretation which had been placed on Rule 7 of the Rules by two Division Bench rulings of this Court in Kallara Sukumaran v. T.M. Jacob (1986 KLT 320 and One Earth One Life v. Sindhu Joy (2007 (1) KLT 897). However, another Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu Contempt (2009 (1) KLT 695) had taken the view that for initiating suo motu criminal contempt the Chief Justice is required to cause the matter placed before the Full Court of the High Court for decision as provided under Section 15 of the Act. In the light of the conflict of judicial opinion this case was referred to a Full Bench. Eventually, a Full Bench of this Court headed by Chief Justice Jasti Chelameswar, in Rahim v. M. V. Jayarajan (2010 (4) KLT 286) overruled Suo Motu Contempt (2009 (1) KLT 695) and affirmed Kallara Sukumaran and One Earth One Life. In accordance with the verdict of the Full Bench, the petition was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action on the administrative side. The learned Chief Justice designated the Hon'ble Justice Pius C. Kuriakose, a senior Judge of this Court to consider the matter for preliminary hearing under Rule 7 (ii) of the Rules. The matter was considered by the Hon'ble Judge who was of the view that it was expedient to take suo motu action under the Act. That is how this case came to be placed before the Division Bench for consideration on the judicial side.

CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS TILL THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL

3. The background facts leading to the conclusion of the trial of this case are as follows :-

23.6.2011. A Division Bench comprising of Mr. Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Mr. Justice P.S. Gopinathan passed Ext.C5 final Judgment dated 23.6.2010 (Khalid Mundappilly v. Executive Engineer (2010 (3) KLT 86) disposing of W.P.(C) No.19253/2010 (a public interest litigation). The Division Bench interalia banned the holding of meetings on public roads and road margins in the State, so as to ensure accident-free and uninterrupted traffic along such public roads.

Note :- The said judgment was subsequently confirmed by the same Judges while disposing of a batch of Review Petitions as evidenced by Ext.C6 series of orders dated 13.8.2010. The order passed in R.P. 670 of 2010 is reported in Chief Secretary to Government v. Khalid Mundappilly (2010 (3) KLT 757). A Special Leave Petition preferred by the State