The court affirmed its power to take suo motu action in instances of criminal contempt that undermine judicial authority, irrespective of the Advocate General's opinion.

1. By this criminal contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction of this Court to punish the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 14 for having committed criminal contempt of Courts.

2. The facts as could be ascertained from the petition are that on 28-3-1994, dead body of Smt. Manorama Kamble was found in the house of one Shri Sham Dewani, a practising Advocate. It was first reported to be an accidental death by the said Shri Sham Dewani. The complainant said that Manorama Kamble had died of electrocution. On post - mortem of the dead body, it was discovered that she died of strangulation by throttling and that she was raped. Therefore, Jaripatka Police Station registered an offence punishable under S.302, S.376, S.201 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code and S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case, though was initially registered against unknown persons, later accused were identified as Sham Dewani, his father and brothers. Incidentally it is necessary to note that the said Manorama Kamble was a maid - servant in the house of Sham Dewani.

3. The first respondent who is an office bearer of the Republican Party of India. had issued press statements and also conducted press conferences which, according to the petitioner, was designed to scandalise and lower the authority of this Court as well as the Courts subordinate to it and the same was also to prejudice and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. In paragraph - 3 of the petition, the petitioner makes reference to various acts which, according to him, would amount to criminal contempt of this Court. It further states :
".............More particularly respondent No. 1 held a press conference on 23-4-1994 in which he made various statements as under -
(a) Shri Damle, learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons for facilitating destruction of evidence after the postmortem report revealed that late Manorama was raped and murdered;
(b) On the day of Holi, there was a wet party at the house of Advocate Dewani in which 4 Sessions Judges were present and although the police know their names, they have not been arrested;
(c) There was no hope that the family of late Manorama Kamble would get justice at the hands of the District and Sessions Courts, Nagpur; and
(d) He named 3 Judges of this Hon'ble Court before whom the trial should be held, clearly implying that in so far as the rest of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court are concerned, he had no faith."
It is further alleged that these statements were widely published in the newspapers of 24-3-1994 which are collectively marked as Annexure - 1 to this petition. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are responsible for such publication. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued public statement - Annexure II dated 27-4-1994 to the effect that there was a party on 27-3-1994 at the residence of Sham Dewani where certain Judges were present. According to the petitioner, not only the first respondent by issuing such statements but also respondents Nos. 3 to 14 who published the said news items have committed contempt of Court, as according to him, by publication of the same, respondent