Inder Sen Israni, J.

1. This is an application in respect of alleged contempt of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan tiled by the petitioner regarding a news item published in daily news paper the Rajasthan Patrika of Jaipur publication, of which the non-petitioner is an Editor.

2. The petitioner was sitting member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly at the time of filing this application and has mentioned in the application that he has filed this application as he is closely associated with public associations and is interested in maintaining and upholding the majesty of law and dignity of judiciary. He has further stated in the application that the Rajasthan Patrika is a popular daily newspaper, published simultaneously from Jaipur, Jodhpur and Udaipur, and has vide circulation in Rajasthan and (hat he is a regular reader of this paper. On 4th March, 1983, the petitioner went to the Railway Station, Jaipur around 5-45 am. to receive some guests when his attention was attracted by the hawker selling the copies of Rajasthan Patrika, who was repeatedly shouting "Mehmano Ko Pahoonchone Wale Dibbe Me Na Chadhen Varna Jail Jana Padega, High Court Ka Taja Faisala". The Petitioner further staled that large number of people collected there to purchase copies from the hawker and every buyer was taken to go through this news item, which he was shouting loudly. It is further alleged that the said news item was holly discussed and commented upon by the passengers and, railway staff on duty and the people who frequently visit railway station and most of the people were hurling filthy abuse to the judiciary and were using filthy and unprintable language. According to the petitioner the said news item lowered the authority of court and poisoned the minds of people against the court. It is also stated that the petitioner visited so many places and met people from different walks of society and came to know that the said news item was the talk of town and every one was laughing and making mockery of the courts, Judges and Parliamentary system. The intellectuals were commenting that innocent persons are harassed by the Magistrates and that entire judiciary from top to bottom is corrupt and that politicians have packed the courts with incompetent Judges etc. This news item according to him continued to be discussed for quite same time, which lowered the prestige of the court and eroded the faith of masses from the judiciary. The petitioner was, therefore, greatly pained to read such a new item which had shaken his faith in judiciary. The Petitioners mind was perplexed and to know the correct position of law, he obtained a certified copy of the order dated 28-1-1983. After going through the said order, the petitioner felt that the non petitioner had published the news item with malafide intention to interfere in the legal process to help the accused and to lower the prestige in the eyes of people at large, which amounts to contempt of court. An affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner in support of his application.

3. In the reply on behalf of the non-petitioner it has been stated that the non-petitioner has greatest respect for the Honble Court, judiciary and majesty of law and he has never willingly or unwillingly shown any disrespect to it. The allegations made in the petition have been denied and it has been pointed out that the hawkers mainly shout about only those news items, which are published on the front page or on the last page and unusual news is published on the last page. The alleged news item was published on the 3rd page, which shows that this was considered to be a news of much less importance. It has been submitted that the entire version is hypothetical as none of the readers commented or wrote even an iota of description made up by the petitioner to the editor Hundreds of letters of readers commenting on various news items or articles are received every day and prominent of such letters are published under the heading Lok-mat. It is further submitted that the entire version is imaginary and that the non-petitioner did not obstruct the course of justice and the allegations levelled by the petitioner are totally false and frivolous. This non-petitioner has further stated that he had met people from judiciary. The reply has been supported by an affidavit of the non-petitioner.

4. We have heard the rival contentions of learned Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the new-item (Annx. I) and have also gone through the record.

5. This news item is regarding the 4 applications filed under Section 482 Cr. PC 1973 against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Jaipur dated May 8, 1982. Briefly the facts of the case pending in the court of the Railway Magistrate are that on 7/8th May, 1982, Dr. Manoj Bhargava along with his family was travelling in first class coach by 2 Down train from Ajmer to Delhi and was in possession of railway pass. At the time of checking, the train was shunting and while the train was being shunted, 4 persons (here after referred to as the applicants) were also found in the same coach. The ticket collector accompanied by First Class Railway Magistrate detected the applicants travelling without tickets or railway passes. They were however, found in possession of platform tickets. A charge sheet was prepared and submitted to the Railway Magistrate. The Railway Magistrate recorded the statements of all the 4 accused persons, two of them admitted their guilt and stated that the platform tickets were given to them by their relatives and they have travelled from Ajmer to Jaipur without tickets in First Class and they prayed to be excused. The remaining two accused persons stated that they had entered the coach without proper tickets and they were caught at the time of shunting operation and they had committed mistake and prayed for pardon. Thereafter, case was adjourned for arguments and orders under Section 252 Cr. P.C. Dissatisfied with above proceedings, all the 4 accused applicants filed 4 petitions under Section 482 Cr. PC 1973 which were rejected by a common order of this court dated January 28, 1983. The news item regarding the above order was published on page No. 3 of the Rajasthan Patrika dated March 4, 1983.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the court is dated 28-1-1983, where as the news item was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 4-3-83. This clearly shows that this new item was published after such a lapse of item only with mala fide intention to lower the dignity of the court and shake the faith of public in judiciary as a whole. He has also pointed out that the very caption given to the news mentioned above also clearly shows that this news item was printed with malafide intention and is a deliberate act of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi. The news as printed gives an impression that as if the court has ignored the law and principles of natural justice in giving the above order. It has been further stated that the contemner did not even brother to obtain the certified copy of the order of this court to properly understand the same, but deliberately published the same with a view to malign the court. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the first paragraph and the last 3 lines of the news make it abundantly clear that the news item has been deliberately distorted to give an impression to intellectuals and public at large that the entire judiciary from top to bottom is corrupt and that politicians have packed the courts with the incompetent judges. It is contended that such filthy words, were heard by the petitioner for number of days at various places from intellectuals and members of public whom he had occasion to contact. He has stressed that last 3 lines have been printed with malafide intention that the judge who gave this order was incompetent and did not possess sound knowledge of law to decide the matters in accordance with law.

7. Learned Counsel for the contemner on the other hand has raised a preliminary objection stating that the contempt petition is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (here in after referred to as the " the"). He has drawn our attention that a criminal contempt can be filed only in one of the following ways under Section 15 of the:

(i) the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion, or

(ii) the Advocate General may file criminal complaint himself or with the consent in writing of the Advocate General.

In this case the complaint has been neither filed by the Advocate General nor his consent in writing has been obtained by the applicant. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the contemner that this court has also not taken any action suo moto in this matter. Therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected summarily on this preliminary objection itself. He has also contended that since more than one year has passed from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the proceedings for contempt have now become time barred and no action can be taken on the same.

8. It will be seen from the order sheets of the file that after the petition for contempt of court was filed, it was ordered as 18-8-1983 that this may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Thereafter, the matter was placed before Honble the Chief Justice on 29-9-1983 and a Bench of 2 Judges consisting of Honble Mr. Justice G.M. Lodha and Honble Mr. Justice G.K. Sharma was constituted to hear and decide this contempt petition. On 10-1-1984 the above mentioned Division Bench of this court, after hearing the petitioner, passed the following order:

Issue notice to Kapoor Chand Kulish, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Keshargarh, Jaipur.

9. Learned Counsel for the contemner has contended that the above order dated 10-1-1984 does not show that the court had taken cognizance suo moto. It may be pointed out that the notice under Rule 324 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules was ordered to be issued to the contemner only after hear ring counsel for the petitioner and it is evident that the learned Judges of the Division Bench did apply their mind before reaching to the conclusion that it was a fit case where notice should be issued to the non-petitioner contemner under Rule 324 of the High Court Rules. If it was the intention of the learned Judges to give show-cause notice for admission to the contemner then evidently the order should have been to show cause why the contempt petition should not be admitted by this court. However, the order dated 10-1-1984 clearly says that notice be issued to the non-petitioner contemner. Learned Counsel for the contemner has drawn our attention to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gula Abbash 1984 RLR 137. The words used by this Court in the order were quite different than the one under consideration. Hence this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. It is therefore, evident that after applying their mind, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that it was a fit case, in which suo moto notice of contempt may be taken and on that account notice of contempt was issued to the non-petitioner contemner. It is thus clear that the Chief Justice of this Court bad placed the matter before the specially constituted Division Bench of this court and it had taken cognizance of the same after hearing counsel for the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no force in the preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for the contemner.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the news item in question does not show of any malafide intention on the part of the contemner nor does it show that an effort has been made to lower the majesty of law and dignity of court in the eyes of public in general. He has pointed out mostly the news item gives details of the arguments raised by the petitioner (applicants) in their petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and the narration of mere arguments cannot be said to constitute contempt of court by any stretch of imagination. He at the very out set made it clear before this court that the non-petitioner has declared in the very first para of the reply that he has greatest respect for this Honble court and the judiciary and the majesty of law and is always willing to abide by the directions or orders issued by the court. He has further stated that the non-petitioner impelled by the same sense of regard and respect for this court has never willingly or unwillingly shown any disrespect to this court. It has also been pointed out that the contents of the petition are concocted and have no real basis, which is evident from the fact that no name of the hawker or intellectual or members of the public with whom the petitioner came in contact and who expressed the opinion given to him as mentioned in the petition of the petitioner, have been disclosed. It has also been pointed out that this news is at page No. 3 and the important news of the day are given either on the first page or on the last page and the hawkers, if they want to announce any important news, will refer to the news item printed on the first or back page of the paper, rather than on 3rd page where less important news are printed. He produced a copy of the Rajasthan Patrika dated 4th March, 1983 to show that several important news items were published on the first page including the one given as box item on the first page regarding the incident in the courts at Bani Park, where in a Magistrate was said to have dictated an order even before the arguments of the parties were heard. He has, therefore, contended that if the hawker had to shout about any news item of importance with a view to sale the paper, he had enough material to sale the same rather than to go on page No. 3, which is less important. He has further stressed that the Patrika has a quite large circulation and has passed the stage of necessity of hawker to go on shouting for sale of its copies. He has also produced the copies of Rajasthan Patrika of 5,6 and 7-3-1983 to show that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has wrongly stated that on account of this news item the circulation of the news paper has increased and in fact the circulation for the following few days had slightly decreased as printed on the news paper itself. It is also contended that it should have been pointed out in the notice issued by this court as to which particular portion or portions of the publication constituted contempt of court. The publication of the news item has given caption "MEHMANON KO VIDA KARNA BHl GUNHA HA/N". The report is made by the legal correspondent of the paper. Its first two paras read as under:.... Thereafter, mostly the news item gives details of contentions raised by the 4 applicants in their petition filed Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Then the arguments raised by the counsel for the applicants have been mentioned. Thereafter, in the end, last 3 lines mention that inspite of these arguments the learned Judge dismissed the petitions. The common judgment given in all the 4 petitions mentioned above, has given factual details of the occurrence and also the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Judge thereafter has discussed the nature and scope of the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The learned Judge has referred to certain rulings of the Apex Court of this country and observed that if on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The applicants had stated that they had entered the railway compartment at the platform of Jaipur Railway station and had come to meet the persons travelling from Ajmer to Delhi in 2 Down Train and they were accused to have travelled without tickets from Ajmer to Jaipur in spite of their having platform tickets in their hand. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand hotly controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants and an affidavit of the concerned ticket collector was also filed in support of the prosecution case prior to beginning of arguments in the matter. It was observed by the learned Judge that the charge and the statements of the applicants recorded under Section 251 Cr. P.C. in the affidavit filed by the ticket collector, it has been mentioned that soon Ahmedabad-Delhi mail reached Jaipur station, he and the concerned Railway Magistrate entered the compartment & found that the four applicants had no tickets to show when a demand was made there-from After sometime when the shunting operation was over, one person had given platform tickets to them and they produced the same. They were asked to mike payment of the railway fare, but they refused and therefore, he produced a charge-sheet before the Magistrate. Learned Judge thereafter observed that till these facts are contradicted by cogent evidence and it is proved by some evidence or cross objection that the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate Under Section 251 Cr. P.C. are not correct, it would be very difficult to state at this stage that the allegations made in the complaint are absurd or inherently improbable or no case is made out against the petitioner. It is further stated that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC this court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the enquiry in question is reliable or not as this could be done only in the trial court. Apart from this, the accused persons had made an admission of their guilt in their statements recorded by the Magistrate, which bear the signature of the applicants who are educated persons and if they had put signatures under compulsion they should have submitted protest application then and there or atleast on the next day. The plea of duress might be correct or might not be correct, but this again is a matter of evidence which can be tried and decided in the trial court and not in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Then again the learned Judge referred to certain authorities of the Apex Court in which it has been laid down that "for the purpose of quashing the proceedings, only allegations stated in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further. It was further observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that "from a perusal of various clauses of the complaint including paragraph 6 it was quit clear that prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made out and the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations made in paragraph 5 are vague". Therefore, keeping in view the law discussed above, learned Judge rejected all the four applications and made it clear that any observations made in the said order will not in any way effect or prejudice the case of either party and affect the final decision of the case. It was further ordered that the accused persons need not present themselves if the lawyer appearing for them in the lower court files applications for exemption of their personal attendance and the learned Magistrate would allow the same.

12. Brief discussion of the order mentioned above clearly shows that the learned Judge had given a most careful consideration to the matters discussed before him and he came to a certain conclusion relying on the law as laid down by the Apex Court of this country.

13. It will be seen that the legal correspondent of the Rajasthan Patrika while reporting the news item under consideration cared to mention on the contentions raised by the applicants in their applications filed under Section 482 Cr. PC and also mentioned the arguments in details raided by the learned Counsel for the applicants. However, no other aspect of the judgment was reported, neither the arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the State were mentioned. It may be observed that it is necessary that when a report of legal proceedings or an order is published, in any news papers, it is necessary that a balanced report may be made out for publication, which should mention the arguments raised by both the sides and also in short the basis on which the order has been passed by the court. However, in this news item the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the State and the documentary evidence on the basis of which the court passed the order, have not been mentioned at all in the news item. Therefore, it can be easily said that the news item under consideration has not correctly reported the order as is expected of the legal correspondent of the news paper, which has large circulation in the State. As the circulation of a news-paper grows, with it also grows the responsibility on its shoulders to report the news items in more matured way as and to discharge its functions in an impartial & in as dignifying way possible. The most common examples of publication, which are punishable for contempt are such which tend to impair the impartiality of the court, which is to try the proceedings. In R. v. Groy 1900 (2) QB 36 Lord Rashail, C.J. observed that any act done or writing published, which is calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt or to lower his authority or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the court, is a contempt of court. The punishment is inflicted not for the purpose of protecting either court as a whole or an individual judge of the court for a repetition of the contempt, but of protecting public and specially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion or subject to the jurisdiction of the court, from mischief they will incur, if the authority of the court is undermined or impaired. The trend in India has been to allow fair criticism of judgments and Lord Atkin had rightly remarked that justice is not a cloistered-feature. In the matter of Madhi v. Frank Moreas AIR 1954 SP, C.J. as he then was observed that once a judgment has been delivered the judge and the jury are alike open to public criticism so long as that criticism does not attribute any bias or unfair motive to them and so long as it does not tend to impair or diminish the authority of the court or to create general impression in the public mind destroying its faith in the administration of justice or lower the authority of court. In the matter of Parashuran Detaram v. Emporor 1945 PC 134 the Privy Council deprecated the contempt of court in reading too much into the original comments of court proceedings and discovering a contempt where there was none, it was observed that it is not trifling criticism hat confidence in court can be created.

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the case of Bherulal & Company v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation RLW 1974 61. This was a case of transfer-application filed in the court, which gave impression that while disposing of the said application, the learned judge was so much pre-possessed on the merits that it was difficult to conceive that when the matters would be heard by him finally, he would be able take any other view and therefore, the application was filed before the Honble Chief Justice of this court for ordering the concerned writ petition to be placed before a Division Bench for hearing. This authority is evidently not applicable to the case under consideration. In the matter of A.G.P. of Bihar v. N.M.P. Khair Industries and Ors. : 1980CriLJ684 , their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that "the court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so it is entrusted with power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression "Contempt of Court" may seem to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is the mode of vindicating the majesty of law in its active manifestation against obstruction and out-rage. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection These are the salutary principles laid down by the Apex Court, which have to be kept in consideration while deciding the applications as one under consideration. In the case of National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan AIR 1955 Raj. 123 the contemner had given statement appearing in press charging the High Court Judges with corruption.lt was alleged that the statements were published with sole intention to deter the Judges Icon deciding the cases pending against him Evidently, this case is not relevant for decision in the matter under consideration. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the case of Gyaniram v. Ramnath Dutt RLW 1978 224 which deals with the proper method of tendering apology and is evidently not relevant for the purpose of the case under consideration.

15. Learned Counsel for the contemner has drawn our attention to the case of State of Rajasthan v. N.R. Mitruka RLW 1978 224 where in it was observed by the Division Bench of this court that it is the intention or motive behind the act which makes out a case for criminal contempt. A letter written with zeal and favour of an idealist acting with the spirit of a crusader against the evil of corruption, though contains exaggeration, only reflects the over zealousness of the contemner and does not amount to contempt of court". In the case of Baroda Kanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court RLW 1978 224, their Lordships of the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following observations made by Jagannathan, Chief Justice (as he then was) of the Orissa High Court in State v. The Editor and Publishers of Eastern Times and Prajatantra (a review of the cases in which a contempt committed by way of scandalization of the court has been taken notice of for punishment shows clearly that the exercise of the punitive jurisdiction is confined to case of very grave and scurrilous attack on the court or on the Judges in their judicial capacity, the ignoring of which could only result in encouraging a repetition of the same with the sense of impugnity which would thereby result in lowering the prestige and authority of the court. The case of Shyamlal reported in : [1978]2SCR581 arose out of the publication of news item in the Times of India Newspaper of 7th January. 1978, on which a notice to show cause why proceedings for contempt of court be not initiated against the editor of the newspaper, was issued. It was a judgment of the Apex Court, in which majority and minority views were given. The news item published in the newspaper critizised one of the two views taken in the case. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case did not consider it to be a fit case where proceedings against the news paper for contempt of the Supreme Court may be initiated. In the case of S. Mulgaokar AIR 1978 SC 727 , it was observed by their Lordships of the Apex Court that the judiciary cannot be immune from criticism. But, if that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored. Even though an action for contempt of court should not be taken lightly, but at the same time it is not correct to suggest that the court should abstain from using this weapon even when its use is needed to correct standards of behaviour in a grossly and repeatedly erring quarter. It may be better in many cases for the judiciary to adopt a magnanimously charitable attitude even when utterly incharitable and unfair criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide concern for improvement. But when there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which must damage confidence in our judicial system and demoralize judges of the highest court by making malicious attacks, any one interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed. In judging whether it constitutes a contempt of court or not the court is not concerned more with the reasonable and probable effects of what is said or written than the motives lying behind what is done. A decision on the question whether the discretion to take action for contempt of court should be exercised in one way or the other must depend on the totality of facts and circumstances". It was further observed that "the first rule in this branch of contempt power is a wise economy of use by the court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the judges, where the attack is, calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The court is willing to ignore, by a majestic liberalism, trifling and trivial offences."

16. It is, therefore, evident from the authorities cited above that the courts are always careful & cautious in using strong arm of law to take action for contempt of court. The news item under consideration consists almost entirely of the contentions mentioned in the application filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and also the arguments raised by their counsel. The first para and last 3 lines of the news item are only portions, which do not find place in the application filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is desirable that show cause notice for contempt of court is issued regarding news items published in a newspaper, the portion is is considered objectionable should be pin pointed, so that the contemner is in position to make specific reply to the same. However, even after pointing out the particular position in the news item under consideration, it is the effect of the news item as a whole, which will be considered by the court. In the news item under consideration, we find that when it is read as a whole, two portions specifically mentioned above and the heading given to the news item does not seem to be properly worded, but in our considered opinion even though when a legal matter is reported in a news paper, it requires more careful handling of the phraseology used in the news item, still in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the contemner has committed contempt of court by publishing this new item. The allegations made in the petition regarding shouts of hawker or the alleged talks between the groups of persons regarding this news item in the manner mentioned in the petition are not supported by any evidence what so ever, so no reliance can be placed on the same. In these days the daily newspapers generally have such legal correspondents, who have sufficient knowledge of law and therefore, it is expected that the news items concerning the decisions of the courts will be reported in more balanced manner than the one under consideration, has been reported.

17. It may be mentioned that when a news item regarding any decision or proceedings of the court is published, it should be kept in view that (i) the contentions of both the parties should be fairly described to give balanced view points of each of the parties as placed before the court by them in their petitions and the replies; (ii) the arguments advanced by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, should also be properly described so that the reader is in position to understand the view points placed before the court by both the counsel; and (iii) the facts and material on which the court bases its decision in the matter should also be described in the news item, so that the readers are in position to understand why the court took a particular view while deciding the, matter.

18. If the above mentioned broad guidelines are followed there might be hardly any occasion for any person to file applications for contempt of court in any court of law.

19. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore, discharge the notice of contempt of court issued to the non-petitioner contemner by this court and the proceedings for contempt against the editor or the Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur are hereby dropped. Ordered accordingly.