G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. Transgression of restrictions and limitations, which are in built in the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India by the Press has been subject of judicial castacism now for really a long period. Irresponsible publication of articles and news without any basis and sometimes even false to the knowledge of the press are the means, frequently attempted by disgruntled reporters to under-mine the dignity of law and diminish the faith of public at large in the institution of Courts, which are involved in dispensation of justice. It is often said that healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of any democracy, but its inevitable consequence has greater responsibility on the Press to publish articles or news after due verification and in a fair manner, particularly where it relates to institutions. Journalism in the present days has attained new dimensions, which is responsible to the public in its activities and should offer fair criticism in all its rightness. Fallibility founded on mischief causing institutional embarrassment and adversely affecting the rudiments of judicial process would normally invite appropriate action against the erring person. The Press while dealing with the institution like Courts and judges, has to avoid blows of biased criticism as it destroys or in any case casts a dent in the public faith. Judges at all levels and all over are exposed or vulnerable to attack, unfounded criticism by one side or the other in every case that comes before them. Publication of unfounded news and casting aspersions on a Judge certainly vitiates the healthy and air judicial environment existence of which itself is essential feature of proper administration of justice. Responsibility of the press to be perfect, requires eternal vigilance and verification of true facts. Any attempt by disgruntled persons or reporters to affect the independence of judiciary and an attempt to defeat the ensured constitutional protection to its independency, must be rejected at the very thresh-hold.

2. The Press Commission of India while referring to the extent of freedom of press in its report of 1954 indicated liberty to honest collection and publication of news and fact and need for fair criticism, journalist should always keep in mind, They further added a caution for a journalist that he shall endeavour to ensure that information is factually correct. No fact shall be distorted and no essential facts shall be suppressed. An information known to be false would not be published. It is reprehensible for a journalist to caste aspersions or impute motives even to the counsels appearing in Courts. Fair and healthy journalism commands a journalist even to refuse publication of anything which has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The fine distinction between the words "Justice and Judge" is to be over-looked when demanded unobstruc-tively in the public interest. Unfounded insunations and accusations against the Judge could be suggestive of scandalising the institution of courts and will certainly affect the dignity of the same in the eyes of a common man and thus, would be amendable to action in law of contempts.

3. Factually incorrect statements reported with an attempt to shake the confidence of public in the institution of Courts and administration of justice offend the basic rule of law granting protection to the press. The freedom of press is a right which must be exercised without fear or favour but with caution of responsibility, subrity and reporting of verified facts. The right also creates enormous duties as well. In absence of expected duties, there can be no moral rights. The terrain of moral restrictions is not always coextensive with the legal restrictions which may be imposed on the right. Up to a point, the restrictions must come from within. The legal protection may continue to remain even though the moral right to it has been