For a comment to constitute contempt of Court, it must substantially interfere with the administration of justice. Publications about pending cases are hazardous and should be avoided.

1. This order will also govern Misc. Criminal Case No. 339 of 1948.

2. These are two cases arising out of two applications made by Hawkins & Powell for suitable action against certain persons for alleged contempt of Court. The first application out of which Misc. Criminal Case No. 327 of 1948 arises was made by Hawkins on 23-8-1948. It was directed against the Hon. Shri D. P. Mishra, Home Minister, Central Provinces & Berar Govt., & the editors & printers of two newspapers called the Hitavada & the Jai-Hind published at Nagpur & Jubbulpore respectively. The incriminating news items purported to be the reports of a speech said to have been delivered by Pandit D. P. Mishra at Jubbulpore on the occasion of the first anniversary of Indian Independence, which fell on 15-8-1948. It was stated by Hawkins in his application that the speech & the news items referred to cases pending against him & that the Home Minister was responsible for the comments in this speech, which were a clear contempt of Court, & that the others were responsible for publishing the said speech in their news-papers with headlines, making the contempt more serious in their case.

3. A similar application was made by Powell on 16-9-1948 for action under S. 2, Contempt of Courts Act with the difference that he did not proceed against Pandit D. P. Mishra but left it to the Court whether to take action against him or not, The application of Hawkins came before me on 25-8-1948, & I made the following order:

Mr. B. R. Mandlekar for the applicant heard. Notice of the application Will issue to. the non-applicants 2-4. Notice together with a copy of the application will issue to the Advocate General C. P. & Berar through the Legal Secretary to Govt. Notice will not issue to the non-applicant 1. The applicant has not disclosed the source of his information in his affidavit, regarding the facts stated in paras 5 & 8 of the affidavit. 'The papers will be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a bench to hear the application since the case as an important one. The date in the case will be fixed after the orders of my lord the Chief Justice.

4. Since the news items 'ex facie' referred to cases apparently pending in Court, notices were caused to be issued to non-applicants 2 to 4, who were connected with the two newspapers in which these news items were published. No notice was issued to non-applicant 1 because newspaper reporting in this Province is sometimes untrustworthy & the nature of the cases then pending was also not known. The applicant had not sworn the affidavit, from his own knowledge; nor had he disclosed the source of his information in his affidavit, which is essential in proceedings for contempt. At my suggestion the learned Acting Chief Justice was pleased to constitute a Bench, & all subsequent proceedings therefore came up for hearing before Hemeon J. & myself.

5. Several hearings took place, & later the applicant Hawkins moved the Court to issue a notice to non-applicant 1. By that time the editor & printer of the Hitavada appeared by counsel & moved that the proceedings be quashed as there was no contempt of Court. Both the applications were therefore set down for hearing together. Meanwhile Powell had also moved the Court, & his application was also set down for the same date for hearing. Notices had been issued by the Divisional Bench in respect of Powell's case also Before the hearing of the case the editor & the printer of the Jai-Hind also entered appearance, & in both these cases notices were issued to the Advocate General so that his assistance at the time of the hearing of the cases might be available to this Court.

6. Before dealing with the matter it is convenient to show how the case developed from stage to stage in this Court. I have already shown above that the applicants had moved for suitable action, under the Contempt of Courts ActAct XII12. of 1926.. On 27-8-1948 the applicant applied in continuation of his application ori