N RAJAGOPALA RAO Vs. MURRTUZA MUJTABBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six posts of District and Sessions judges, to be filled by direct recruitment from the members of the Bar, were advertised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Since those appointments are to be made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, under Art. 233 of the Constitution of India in consultatlon-with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the applications re. ceived by the Government were forwarded to the High Court for the purposes of selecting and recommending suitable candidates for appointment. The High Court appointed a Selection Committee, consisting of five of its senior judges, to interview the applicants and to report to it their assessment of the ability of the applicants for appointment as District and Sessions Judges On the basis of the report of the Selection Committee, regard, ing the abillty of the applicants, assessed on the basis of the interview, the High Court recommended to the Government six candidates for appointment as District and Sessions Judges.

(2.) An applicant who was interviewed but not recommended by the High Court to the Governor for appointment as District Judge, filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the recommendations made by the High Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the respondents herein, who are the Publisher and Editor published on the front page of their English Weekly, named "Anti-corruption, Vol. 10 No. 29 dated 27-7-1973, an Article under the Caption "Selection of six Setsions Judges Damn Disgrace to the entire Judiciary".

(3.) Two practising advocates have filed two separate petitions under the Contempt of Courts Act (No.70 of 1971) (herein after called 'the Act'), alleging that the respondents committed contempt of court by publishing the said Article in their English weekly. The petitioners submitted that the contents of the Article are false; that, the respondents, in their Article, attributed unfairness and sectional prejudices to the judges who interviewed the applicants, cast aspersions in regard to the integrity of the judges, with a view to scandalise them and bring down the reputation of the judges. The Article was calculated to shake the confidence of the public in the administation of law and Justice by the High Court, and to lower the dignity of the High Court. The article was published at a time when the writ petition, challenging the validity of the recommendations made by the High Court, was pending and with a view to interfere with the administration of justice and to influence the mind of the High Court. The comments made by the respondents, in their Article, exceeded the limits of fair, reasonable and legitimate comments. In fact it was an irresponsible interference with the administration of justice. The Article even suggested that the High Court has already lost its reputation. In publishing the said Article, the respondents committed criminal contempt of court, and they should be punished according to law.