In Re: Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Chief Minister of A.P. and Sri K. Keshav Rao, President, Pradesh Congress Committee - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- practice & procedure repeal of act; [bilal nazki, c.v. ramulu & d. appa rao, jj] rules framed under the old (repealed) act held, rules framed under the repealed act do not remain in force once the act is repealed unless repealing act provided otherwise. - when the executives do wrong, good suggestions and judgments would be given by the judiciary. if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. if the statements reported by the press, media, telecast to be considered, prima facie this court is satisfied that both of them are liable to contempt of court. 7. in the light of the foregoing reasons, inasmuch as this court is prima facie satisfied that it would be just and proper to issue show cause notices to, (1) sri dr. a bare reading of the said provision clearly goes to show that power of the governor of the state in this behalf is to appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of a high court. status and responsibility of the learned advocate general had been well emphasized in periyar and pareekanni rubbers ltd. the clear division of powers are well articulated by articles 121 and 211 and also by articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the constitution of india. this trend to be deprecated and disapproved in the interest of all concerned. if this wing fails the very foundation of the political, executive and the social systems and the other systems as well would be at peril.orderp.s. narayana, j.1. heard the learned advocate general, sri satyanarayana prasad, the learned senior counsel representing the opposite party no. 1 and sri s.r. ashok, the learned senior counsel representing the opposite party no. 2.2. show cause notices were issued by this court on 4-8-2006 whereunderthis court had stated as hereunder:1. an unfortunate, unprecedented, novel situation arose in state of andhra pradesh wherein the press reported and there was telecast too, of certain controversial statements threatening and derogatory, said to have been made about judicial verdict and also judiciary by both sri dr. y.s. rajashekhar reddy, the chief minister of andhra pradesh and sri k. keshav rao, the pradesh congress committee, chief of state of andhra pradesh. judge is a public office. judge is accountable to public. judge is expected to discharge his duties as per the oath administered to him and taken, and as per the provisions of the constitution of india. confidence of public at large in judiciary to be protected at any cost and when the same is at peril, judge is duty bound to act in accordance with law. if the constitutional duties are not discharged by the constitutional functionaries, it is the bounden duty of the constitutional courts to make appropriate orders to see that such duties are carried on as ordained by the constitution of india and incidentally may make several observations to remedy the working of the system, at least in future in the interest of, and for up-keeping constitutional values. the question is whether sri dr. y.s. rajashekar reddy, the chief minister of state of andhra pradesh and sri keshav rao, the pradesh congress committee, chief of state of andhra pradesh can make such statements, whether they made such statements at all, if made, whether they can be or cannot be made liable under the provisions of the contempt of courtsact or whether the press, media, telecast misquoted them? it is unknown on what advice these steps were taken by sri dr. y.s. rajashekar reddy and sri keshav rao. even if such steps are taken out of political anxiety or anxiousness, these steps are wrong steps and on the ground that these are only reports, the matter cannot be simply brushed aside, since it is a matter concerned with the public confidence in relation to the judicial institutions. thus the matter assumes lot of importance in the light of protecting constitutional interest and also in the light of public interest too. thus, this lis, suo motu contempt proceedings and issuance of show cause notices to the persons referred to supra became inevitable. if the press, media, telecast etc., made and reported correct statements of these two specified above, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that it will tend to interfering with the administration of justice, scandalizing or blackmailing the learned judges. this is nothing short of interfering with the judiciary by unconcerned wings. this is wholly impermissible.2. this is a court of record. article 214 of the constitution of india states that there shall be high court for each state. article 215 of the constitution of india states that every high court shall be a court of record and shall have all powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. in state of u.p. v. bhatuk : 1978crilj839 it was observed that high court means entire body of judges appointed to the high court. judicial discipline is the strength of this institution. judicial accountability is the essential facet of this institution. it is unfortunate that the learned judges are being targeted since the learned judges are expected to observe discipline. it is really a misfortune in the working of the system. public to have confidence in the judiciary, common man's faith in this institution is of utmost importance for the up keeping of the functioning of the democracy. contextual reference or remarks always would be within the domain of the judge in the decision making. outside wings have nothing to do with the same, most probably, except bona fide comment. threatening remarks or derogatory statements relating to judicial wing by outside wings always to be discouraged or deprecated. quite often by making such statements, outside wings invite contempt proceedings by making certain uncharitable remarks. on the prima facie material placed before this court there appears to be some controversy whether the press reported the statements or remarks properly or not. the press and media though protected by the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of press, may have to observe some restraint in sensitive matters. this court is not inclined to express any further opinion about the general aspects. suffice to state that in view of separation of powers, if independence of judiciary to be disturbed by other wings by resorting to these methods, this court cautions that it may be a black day for democracy itself. test to a judicial verdict or order to be within the permissible mechanism and not by the outside wings.3. letter dated 20-7-2006 received a couple of days ago, addressed by g. rama rao, door no. 7-3-44, dwarakanagar, khammam, in substance is as hereunder:on 30-6-2006 in one case relating to elections, high court judge made certain remarks relating to the office of the election commissioner appointed as required by the government. it is stated that it is reported in enadu on 1 -7-2006 and the same was enclosed. on 2-7-2006 enadu-what are those words - objectionable - in favour of one political party - remarks of high court unsatisfactory by y.s. and k.k. several details had been narrated and the same was enclosed. on 3-7-2006 eenadu-remarks of judge to be deleted -k.k. pradesh congress committee presiden twas misquoted-wordyquarrel by lawyers with press reporters. several details had been narrated and the same was enclosed. it is stated that the matter referred to in press reports, news items to be treated as though he had stated the same. it is also stated that the present chief minister sri y.s. rajasekhar reddy and the ruling congress state president sri keshav rao, if the statements are examined, the people will lose confidence in the judicial system. on a decision of high court, appeal to be preferred but statements ridiculing or demeaning judiciary should not be made. he also stated that if the statements in news papers and what was stated in the media, if taken, it is clear that they are threatening the judges. if the chief minister, a person holding such office, if criticizes the judgments of the judges, common people will lose faith in the judicial system. country would become disorderly. constitution to be protected by the judiciary. when the legislature and executive commit wrongs judiciary to rectify and to put the same in order. when the executives do wrong, good suggestions and judgments would be given by the judiciary. it is unfortunate that sri dr. y.s. rajasekhar reddy, does not know at least this much which is really sorrowful. congress president sri k.k's comments in relation to the selection of judges are highly derogatory of judicial system. in the same way, the chief minister, sri y.s. rajasekhar reddy also made statements, which are highly derogatory in relation to judicial system and high court judges, and the statements are of threatening nature. in case newspapers gave wrong reporting, action can be taken against them and confidence in thejudiciary to be protected at any cost. example was given - high court calls collectors, s.ps., secretaries, higher officers and deal with them with contempt proceedings. in such a case, a cm. expressing anger against the judges would make the common people to lose faith in the judiciary. however high one may be, in the interest of the judiciary and to protect the values of the judicial system, the people should be made to feel that all are equal before high courts. when that being so, statements made, referred above, in relation to the judicial system, selection of judges, degrading judges, threatening judges made by sri dr. y.s.r. and sri k.k. not only to be deprecated, an enquiry to be conducted to take appropriate action that such things not to be repeated and to protect the confidence of the public in judicial system. hence, it is prayed that the high court to take necessary steps.4. in the letter it was also referred that a copy along with material already had been marked to the learned chief justice. apart from this sri k.k., it is stated, made serious comments attributing motives to the judge by telecast in t.v. on 20-6-2006 and subsequent thereto, relating to the judgment in w.p.no. 10965 of 2006 and batch. this cannot be said to be bona fide comment. in any view of the matter, what stand sri k.k. is going to take being unknown at this stage, this court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to the same.5. the details narrated supra, the contents of the letter and the press reports referred to supra predominantly relate to the observations made in relation to the election machinery and the state election commission in w.p.m.p. no. 16536 of 2006 in w.p. no. 13307 of 2006. it is needless to say that these statements are in relation to the judgment made by this court and a judicial order made by this court. there cannot be any two opinions. these statements, if true are not mere defamatory attack on the judge, but amount to interfering with the due course of justice and proper administration of law by the courts. the publication of a degrading statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people about the integrity, ability or fairness of a judge or, to deter actual and prospective litigants from facing complete reliance upon the justice delivery system and likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. respect to judgment is expected not only from those who accept it, but also from those who may be repugnant. thus to err in criticism would be acting at their own peril. in rajender 'sail v. m.p. high court bar association and ors. : 2005crilj2585 while dealing with articles 215 and 129 of the constitution of india and also the fair criticism of judicial acts and judgments, criticism likely to interfere with the due administration of justice or undermine confidence that public repose in courts of law as courts of justice, it was held that the same ceases to be fair and reasonable criticism and amounts to criminal contempt of court. the apex court at para 11 observed as hereunder:it has been repeatedly held that the rule of law is the foundation of democratic society. the judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. the confidence, which the people repose in the courts of justice, cannot be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by the contemptuous behaviour of any person. if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. the foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. when the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. it is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing for contempt of court those, who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing it. when the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice.6. prima facie, this court is of the opinion that sri dr. y.s. rajashekar reddy, as chief minister of state of andhra pradesh and sri k. keshav rao, as pradesh congress committee chief of state of andhra pradesh going to press, media or telecast in relation to judicial orders of high court of andhra pradesh itself is a wrong approach. this is nothing short of outside wings trying to encroach and sit upon the judicial institutions. under the scheme of the constitution of india, it is impermissible. this court is concerned only with maintaining the constitutional values, dignity of this institution and to maintain the institutional independence and this court is unconcerned with other aspects. in view of the statements, clarificatory statements, certain quarrel with the press reporters, clear picture is not emerging before this court what actually had happened. if the statements reported by the press, media, telecast to be considered, prima facie this court is satisfied that both of them are liable to contempt of court. this is only prima facie opinion, since opportunity to be given to the opposite parties in relation thereto. since these are of press reports, media, telecast, it is made clear that it may be essential to examine and record the statements of the concerned inclusive of editors and reporters of the concerned news papers, at the appropriate stage. it is not known at this stage whether the opposite parties are going to affirm such statements or going to deny or modify or would contend that it is wrong reporting or may intend to justify their stand on other grounds. it may not be out of context, if this court observes that in the wordy quarrel it appears that certain advocates also participated and depending upon the respective stands which may be taken by both specified supra at the appropriate stage, it may be necessary to examine those concerned also and record their statements, so far they may be relevant in the present case. suffice to state that neither the chief minister nor the pradesh congress committee chief are parties to the litigation in question. this aspect also may have to be taken into consideration.7. in the light of the foregoing reasons, inasmuch as this court is prima facie satisfied that it would be just and proper to issue show cause notices to, (1) sri dr. y.s. rajashekar reddy, the chief minister of state of andhra pradesh, and (2) sri k. keshav rao, president, pradesh congress committee, to explain why contempt proceedings cannot be taken against them and accordingly, the registry to serve notice and the opposite parties are given ten days time to explain their respective stands relating to the same.let the matter appear in the list after ten days.3. the learned advocate general appeared on the date of issuance of the show cause notices.4. on 8-8-2006 the learned chief justice had directed the matter to appear in the list as per roster. the matter appeared on 14-8-2006 and this court recorded as hereunder:ms. sindhu kumari, the learned counsel states that she is appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1. sri simhadri, the learned counsel states that the counsel is representing the opposite party no. 2. sri satyanarayana prasad and sri s.r. ashok, the learned senior counsel would submit that they are instructed to appear by the concerned counsel on record. the counsel request time to file objections/counter affidavits, if any, as the case may be.this is an episode concerned with the majesty and the dignity of this mighty institution and its institutional independence. status of the office of the learned advocate general need not be emphasized by this court. in m. t. khan and ors. v. government of andhra pradesh and ors. : (2004)2scc267 it was held:a bare reading of the said provision clearly goes to show that power of the governor of the state in this behalf is to appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of a high court. similar expressions have been used by the constitution makers for the purpose of appointment of holders of constitutional posts including the attorney general of india, comptroller and auditor general of india, the chief justice and judges of the high courts and the supreme court. the constitutional scheme, thus, is that when a constitutional post is required to be filled up by a person having the qualification specified there for, he would alone perform the duties and functions, be it constitutional or statutory, attached to the said office. the constitution does not envisage that such functions be performed by more than one person. the reason there for is obvious. if more than one person is appointed to discharge the constitutional functions as also the statutory functions, different advocate generals may act differently resulting in a loss as to which opinion/decision is to be acted upon. the office of the advocate general is a public office. he not only has a right to address the functions in terms of section 302 of the code of criminal procedure, section 92 of the code of civil procedure and section 23 of the advocates act. each of such functions performed by the advocate general is of great public importance. such public functions are required to be performed by the holder of a constitutional post having regard to his stature and keeping in view the fact that the state intended to endow such responsibility upon him.status and responsibility of the learned advocate general had been well emphasized in periyar and pareekanni rubbers ltd. v. state of kerala : air1990sc2192 . article 165(1) of the constitution of india specifies that the governor shall appoint a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of the high court to be an advocate general.in view of the same, let the learned advocate general assist the court further.in view of the request made by the senior counsel sri satyanarayana prasad and sri s.r. ashok, let the matter appear in the list after six weeks.5. the learned senior counsel sri s. satyanarayana prasad and sri s.r. ashok would maintain that the institutional independence of this mighty institution to be protected. incidentally the learned senior counsel also would maintain that instead of going into the other objections whether these contempt proceedings are to be further proceeded with or whether the papers are to be placed before the honourable chief justice for further placing the matter before the appropriate division bench in the light of the provisions of the contempt of courts act, 1971 and the rules made there under, inasmuch as the message expected to be conveyed had been taken note of and in a way, by letter and spirit, the broad purpose of initiation of this suo motu contempt case had been fulfilled, and inasmuch as such powers are to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to maintain the dignity of this institution, it would be just and proper to put an end to these proceedings. sri satyanarayana prasad, however, would make a request that if the parameters and the defined limitations relating to such comments vis-a-vis the freedom of press, media, telecast etc., if to be gone into, the present contempt proceedings may be treated as public interest litigation and further hearing may be taken up in the interest of the public at large.6. this court is concerned with the independence of judiciary and the institutional independence of the judicial institutions. impartial and fearless judiciary would be an essential need of democracy. the clear division of powers are well articulated by articles 121 and 211 and also by articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the constitution of india.7. freedom of speech or expression is not an unfettered phenomenon and the same has its own limitations. parties are expected to take recourse to such remedies available to them in law in challenging or questioning the judicial orders, but attacking the learned judges with comments in nundo or otherwise would send wrong signals to the public at large. it is needless to say that politicians quite often would be making comments in pending matters before judiciary. comments which may tend to influence or deter the judge or in any other way interfering with the administration of justice by the outside wings are impermissible. learned judges maintain discipline. respect towards the verdict of judiciary is highly essential and the aggrieved party may question the same by any of the modes available to him in law. public comments, going to press, media or telecast commenting, criticizing or ridiculing judicial orders except where they are fair or bona fide, are impermissible. this trend to be deprecated and disapproved in the interest of all concerned.8. the might and dignity of the judicial institutions cannot be lowered by any one irrespective of the position one may occupy in political, legislative, executive, corporate or social hierarchy. let the separation of powers of the wings as enshrined by the constitutional scheme be maintained; let not the institutional independency of judiciary be let down at any cost; let judicial discipline be safeguarded by other wings too in the interest of all; let the judicial discipline be appreciated by other wings in right spirit and proper perspective; let pubic in general and politicians in particular be cautious while making comments on judicial orders, especially through press, telecast, media etc., let not these wings trespass into the ambit of the other wings, if impermissible; let these wings keep in mind the basics enshrined by the constitution of india; let not the judicial patience and self-imposed restraint be put to test by other wings by resorting to such acts and let these be maintained for the upkeep of the healthy democracy. this is the working of our constitution. in s.nagender v. government of andhra pradesh 2006 (4) alt 66 (f.b.) in the context of selection of law officers and government pleaders it was observed at para 21 as hereunder:interest of this institution predominantly depends upon the efficient bar and the bench. it is needless to say that independence of judiciary is the core of the working of the division of powers amongst the three wings. if this wing fails the very foundation of the political, executive and the social systems and the other systems as well would be at peril. in that view of the matter too, the policy of reservation may have to be viewed and hence when the state government had taken a policy decision in this regard the same may have to be decided in the backdrop of the limitations of judicial review imposed on these courts by settled principles. the institutional interest to be kept in view and equally so the constitutional obligations also may have to be followed. the realities of indian society cannot be lost sight of and judiciary may have to function in the interest and larger welfare of the society in the backdrop of the constitutional obligations enshrined in the constitution. it is needless to overemphasize on the role which is expected to be played by the concerned government pleaders to represent the cases of government in this regard. in p.s. manohar naidu v. state election commission 2006 (4) alt 607.at para 8 it was observed:the constitutional courts are bound to discharge, their obligations, may be to the displeasure of a couple of persons. persons count little. working of the institutions and working of the system would be more important. men may come and men may go, but institutions survive. let not the institutions be degraded. all political parties are equal. the peoples' popular democracy to be protected at any cost. the views already expressed by this court need not be repeated again. let the democratic institutions function in this country with all vigor and vitality. let the independent judiciary discharge its constitutional duties to the expectations of the common man. let not the constitutional functionaries water down the basic fundamental democratic values. the decisions in supreme court bar association v. union of india : [1998]2scr795 . bal thackrey v. harish pimpalkhute : 2005crilj659 . rajendra sail v. madhaya pradesh high court bar association : 2005crilj2585 . and in re arundhati roy v. union of india : 2002crilj1792 . may also be referred to in this context.9. while dealing with contempt cases of this nature, the primary aspects of the contempt power and the jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to be kept in mind. the dignity and the majesty of this court as a court of record also cannot be lost sight of. in the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate general and also the respective stands taken by the learned senior counsel representing the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2, keeping the dignity and the majesty of this institution in view and also in the light of the fact that such powers may have to be exercised very sparingly and cautiously, this court is inclined to drop further proceedings in this suo motu contempt case with the above observations referred to supra.10. accordingly the suo motu contempt case is hereby closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocate General, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 1 and Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. Show Cause Notices were issued by this Court on 4-8-2006 whereunderthis Court had stated as hereunder:

1. An unfortunate, unprecedented, novel situation arose in State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Press reported and there was telecast too, of certain controversial statements threatening and derogatory, said to have been made about judicial verdict and also judiciary by both Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Sri K. Keshav Rao, the Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh. Judge is a public office. Judge is accountable to public. Judge is expected to discharge his duties as per the oath administered to him and taken, and as per the provisions of the Constitution of India. Confidence of public at large in judiciary to be protected at any cost and when the same is at peril, judge is duty bound to act in accordance with law. If the constitutional duties are not discharged by the constitutional functionaries, it is the bounden duty of the Constitutional Courts to make appropriate orders to see that such duties are carried on as ordained by the Constitution of India and incidentally may make several observations to remedy the working of the system, at least in future in the interest of, and for up-keeping constitutional values. The question is whether Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy, the Chief Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri Keshav Rao, the Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh can make such statements, whether they made such statements at all, if made, whether they can be or cannot be made liable under the provisions of the Contempt of CourtsAct or whether the Press, Media, telecast misquoted them? It is unknown on what advice these steps were taken by Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy and Sri Keshav Rao. Even if such steps are taken out of political anxiety or anxiousness, these steps are wrong steps and on the ground that these are only reports, the matter cannot be simply brushed aside, since it is a matter concerned with the public confidence in relation to the judicial institutions. Thus the matter assumes lot of importance in the light of protecting constitutional interest and also in the light of public interest too. Thus, this lis, suo motu contempt proceedings and issuance of show cause notices to the persons referred to supra became inevitable. If the press, media, telecast etc., made and reported correct statements of these two specified above, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that it will tend to interfering with the administration of justice, scandalizing or blackmailing the learned Judges. This is nothing short of interfering with the judiciary by unconcerned wings. This is wholly impermissible.

2. This is a Court of record. Article 214 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be High Court for each State. Article 215 of the Constitution of India states that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. In State of U.P. v. Bhatuk : 1978CriLJ839 it was observed that High Court means entire body of Judges appointed to the High Court. Judicial discipline is the strength of this institution. Judicial accountability is the essential facet of this institution. It is unfortunate that the learned Judges are being targeted since the learned Judges are expected to observe discipline. It is really a misfortune in the working of the system. Public to have confidence in the judiciary, common man's faith in this institution is of utmost importance for the up keeping of the functioning of the democracy. Contextual reference or remarks always would be within the domain of the Judge in the decision making. Outside wings have nothing to do with the same, most probably, except bona fide comment. Threatening remarks or derogatory statements relating to judicial wing by outside wings always to be discouraged or deprecated. Quite often by making such statements, outside wings invite contempt proceedings by making certain uncharitable remarks. On the prima facie material placed before this Court there appears to be some controversy whether the press reported the statements or remarks properly or not. The press and media though protected by the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of press, may have to observe some restraint in sensitive matters. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion about the general aspects. Suffice to state that in view of separation of powers, if independence of judiciary to be disturbed by other wings by resorting to these methods, this Court cautions that it may be a black day for democracy itself. Test to a judicial verdict or order to be within the permissible mechanism and not by the outside wings.

3. Letter dated 20-7-2006 received a couple of days ago, addressed by G. Rama Rao, Door No. 7-3-44, Dwarakanagar, Khammam, in substance is as hereunder:

On 30-6-2006 in one case relating to elections, High Court Judge made certain remarks relating to the office of the Election Commissioner appointed as required by the Government. It is stated that it is reported in Enadu on 1 -7-2006 and the same was enclosed. On 2-7-2006 Enadu-what are those words - objectionable - in favour of one political party - remarks of High Court unsatisfactory by Y.S. and K.K. Several details had been narrated and the same was enclosed. On 3-7-2006 Eenadu-remarks of Judge to be deleted -K.K. Pradesh Congress Committee Presiden twas misquoted-wordyquarrel by Lawyers with Press Reporters. Several details had been narrated and the same was enclosed. It is stated that the matter referred to in press reports, news items to be treated as though he had stated the same. It is also stated that the present Chief Minister Sri Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy and the ruling Congress State President Sri Keshav Rao, if the statements are examined, the people will lose confidence in the judicial system. On a decision of High Court, appeal to be preferred but statements ridiculing or demeaning judiciary should not be made. He also stated that if the statements in news papers and what was stated in the media, if taken, it is clear that they are threatening the Judges. If the Chief Minister, a person holding such office, if criticizes the judgments of the Judges, common people will lose faith in the judicial system. Country would become disorderly. Constitution to be protected by the Judiciary. When the Legislature and Executive commit wrongs judiciary to rectify and to put the same in order. When the Executives do wrong, good suggestions and judgments would be given by the judiciary. It is unfortunate that Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, does not know at least this much which is really sorrowful. Congress President Sri K.K's comments in relation to the selection of Judges are highly derogatory of judicial system. In the same way, the Chief Minister, Sri Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy also made statements, which are highly derogatory in relation to judicial system and High Court Judges, and the statements are of threatening nature. In case newspapers gave wrong reporting, action can be taken against them and confidence in thejudiciary to be protected at any cost. Example was given - High Court calls Collectors, S.Ps., Secretaries, higher officers and deal with them with contempt proceedings. In such a case, a CM. expressing anger against the Judges would make the common people to lose faith in the judiciary. However high one may be, in the interest of the judiciary and to protect the values of the judicial system, the people should be made to feel that all are equal before High Courts. When that being so, statements made, referred above, in relation to the judicial system, selection of Judges, degrading Judges, threatening Judges made by Sri Dr. Y.S.R. and Sri K.K. not only to be deprecated, an enquiry to be conducted to take appropriate action that such things not to be repeated and to protect the confidence of the public in judicial system. Hence, it is prayed that the High Court to take necessary steps.

4. In the letter it was also referred that a copy along with material already had been marked to the learned Chief Justice. Apart from this Sri K.K., it is stated, made serious comments attributing motives to the Judge by telecast in T.V. on 20-6-2006 and subsequent thereto, relating to the judgment in W.P.No. 10965 of 2006 and Batch. This cannot be said to be bona fide comment. In any view of the matter, what stand Sri K.K. is going to take being unknown at this stage, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to the same.

5. The details narrated supra, the contents of the letter and the press reports referred to supra predominantly relate to the observations made in relation to the election machinery and the State Election Commission in W.P.M.P. No. 16536 of 2006 in W.P. No. 13307 of 2006. It is needless to say that these statements are in relation to the judgment made by this Court and a judicial order made by this Court. There cannot be any two opinions. These statements, if true are not mere defamatory attack on the Judge, but amount to interfering with the due course of justice and proper administration of law by the Courts. The publication of a degrading statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people about the integrity, ability or fairness of a Judge or, to deter actual and prospective litigants from facing complete reliance upon the justice delivery system and likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. Respect to judgment is expected not only from those who accept it, but also from those who may be repugnant. Thus to err in criticism would be acting at their own peril. In Rajender 'Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association and Ors. : 2005CriLJ2585 while dealing with Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution of India and also the fair criticism of judicial acts and judgments, criticism likely to interfere with the due administration of justice or undermine confidence that public repose in Courts of Law as Courts of Justice, it was held that the same ceases to be fair and reasonable criticism and amounts to criminal contempt of court. The Apex Court at para 11 observed as hereunder:

It has been repeatedly held that the rule of law is the foundation of democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. The confidence, which the people repose in the courts of justice, cannot be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by the contemptuous behaviour of any person. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing for contempt of court those, who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing it. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice.

6. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy, as Chief Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri K. Keshav Rao, as Pradesh Congress Committee Chief of State of Andhra Pradesh going to press, media or telecast in relation to judicial orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh itself is a wrong approach. This is nothing short of outside wings trying to encroach and sit upon the judicial institutions. Under the scheme of the Constitution of India, it is impermissible. This Court is concerned only with maintaining the constitutional values, dignity of this institution and to maintain the institutional independence and this Court is unconcerned with other aspects. In view of the statements, clarificatory statements, certain quarrel with the press reporters, clear picture is not emerging before this Court what actually had happened. If the statements reported by the press, media, telecast to be considered, prima facie this Court is satisfied that both of them are liable to contempt of court. This is only prima facie opinion, since opportunity to be given to the opposite parties in relation thereto. Since these are of press reports, media, telecast, it is made clear that it may be essential to examine and record the statements of the concerned inclusive of editors and reporters of the concerned news papers, at the appropriate stage. It is not known at this stage whether the opposite parties are going to affirm such statements or going to deny or modify or would contend that it is wrong reporting or may intend to justify their stand on other grounds. It may not be out of context, if this Court observes that in the wordy quarrel it appears that certain advocates also participated and depending upon the respective stands which may be taken by both specified supra at the appropriate stage, it may be necessary to examine those concerned also and record their statements, so far they may be relevant in the present case. Suffice to state that neither the Chief Minister nor the Pradesh Congress Committee Chief are parties to the litigation in question. This aspect also may have to be taken into consideration.

7. In the light of the foregoing reasons, inasmuch as this Court is prima facie satisfied that it would be just and proper to issue show cause notices to, (1) Sri Dr. Y.S. Rajashekar Reddy, the Chief Minister of State of Andhra Pradesh, and (2) Sri K. Keshav Rao, President, Pradesh Congress Committee, to explain why contempt proceedings cannot be taken against them and accordingly, the Registry to serve notice and the opposite parties are given ten days time to explain their respective stands relating to the same.

Let the matter appear in the list after ten days.

3. The learned Advocate General appeared on the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notices.

4. On 8-8-2006 the learned Chief Justice had directed the matter to appear in the List as per roster. The matter appeared on 14-8-2006 and this Court recorded as hereunder:

Ms. Sindhu Kumari, the learned Counsel states that she is appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Sri Simhadri, the learned Counsel states that the Counsel is representing the opposite party No. 2. Sri Satyanarayana Prasad and Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned senior counsel would submit that they are instructed to appear by the concerned Counsel on record. The Counsel request time to file objections/counter affidavits, if any, as the case may be.

This is an episode concerned with the majesty and the dignity of this mighty institution and its institutional independence. Status of the office of the learned Advocate General need not be emphasized by this Court. In M. T. Khan and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : (2004)2SCC267 it was held:

A bare reading of the said provision clearly goes to show that power of the Governor of the State in this behalf is to appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court. Similar expressions have been used by the Constitution makers for the purpose of appointment of holders of Constitutional posts including the Attorney General of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Constitutional scheme, thus, is that when a Constitutional post is required to be filled up by a person having the qualification specified there for, he would alone perform the duties and functions, be it Constitutional or statutory, attached to the said office. The Constitution does not envisage that such functions be performed by more than one person. The reason there for is obvious. If more than one person is appointed to discharge the Constitutional functions as also the statutory functions, different Advocate Generals may act differently resulting in a loss as to which opinion/decision is to be acted upon. The office of the Advocate General is a public office. He not only has a right to address the functions in terms of Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 23 of the Advocates Act. Each of such functions performed by the Advocate General is of great public importance. Such public functions are required to be performed by the holder of a Constitutional post having regard to his stature and keeping in view the fact that the State intended to endow such responsibility upon him.

Status and responsibility of the learned Advocate General had been well emphasized in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala : AIR1990SC2192 . Article 165(1) of the Constitution of India specifies that the Governor shall appoint a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court to be an Advocate General.

In view of the same, let the learned Advocate General assist the Court further.

In view of the request made by the Senior Counsel Sri Satyanarayana Prasad and Sri S.R. Ashok, let the matter appear in the list after six weeks.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad and Sri S.R. Ashok would maintain that the Institutional independence of this mighty Institution to be protected. Incidentally the learned Senior Counsel also would maintain that instead of going into the other objections whether these contempt proceedings are to be further proceeded with or whether the papers are to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for further placing the matter before the appropriate Division Bench in the light of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules made there under, inasmuch as the message expected to be conveyed had been taken note of and in a way, by letter and spirit, the broad purpose of initiation of this suo motu Contempt Case had been fulfilled, and inasmuch as such powers are to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to maintain the dignity of this Institution, it would be just and proper to put an end to these proceedings. Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, however, would make a request that if the parameters and the defined limitations relating to such comments vis-a-vis the freedom of Press, Media, Telecast etc., if to be gone into, the present Contempt proceedings may be treated as Public Interest Litigation and further hearing may be taken up in the interest of the public at large.

6. This Court is concerned with the independence of Judiciary and the Institutional independence of the Judicial Institutions. Impartial and fearless Judiciary would be an essential need of Democracy. The clear division of powers are well articulated by Articles 121 and 211 and also by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution of India.

7. Freedom of speech or expression is not an unfettered phenomenon and the same has its own limitations. Parties are expected to take recourse to such remedies available to them in Law in challenging or questioning the Judicial orders, but attacking the learned Judges with comments in nundo or otherwise would send wrong signals to the public at large. It is needless to say that politicians quite often would be making comments in pending matters before Judiciary. Comments which may tend to influence or deter the Judge or in any other way interfering with the administration of justice by the outside wings are impermissible. Learned Judges maintain discipline. Respect towards the verdict of Judiciary is highly essential and the aggrieved party may question the same by any of the modes available to him in Law. Public comments, going to Press, Media or Telecast commenting, criticizing or ridiculing Judicial orders except where they are fair or bona fide, are impermissible. This trend to be deprecated and disapproved in the interest of all concerned.

8. The might and dignity of the Judicial Institutions cannot be lowered by any one irrespective of the position one may occupy in Political, Legislative, Executive, Corporate or social hierarchy. Let the separation of powers of the wings as enshrined by the Constitutional scheme be maintained; let not the Institutional independency of Judiciary be let down at any cost; let Judicial discipline be safeguarded by other wings too in the interest of all; let the Judicial discipline be appreciated by other wings in right spirit and proper perspective; let pubic in general and politicians in particular be cautious while making comments on Judicial orders, especially through Press, Telecast, Media etc., let not these wings trespass into the ambit of the other wings, if impermissible; let these wings keep in mind the basics enshrined by the Constitution of India; let not the Judicial patience and self-imposed restraint be put to test by other wings by resorting to such acts and let these be maintained for the upkeep of the healthy Democracy. This is the working of our Constitution. In S.Nagender v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (4) ALT 66 (F.B.) in the context of selection of Law Officers and Government Pleaders it was observed at para 21 as hereunder:

Interest of this institution predominantly depends upon the efficient Bar and the Bench. It is needless to say that independence of Judiciary is the core of the working of the division of powers amongst the three wings. If this wing fails the very foundation of the political, executive and the social systems and the other systems as well would be at peril. In that view of the matter too, the policy of reservation may have to be viewed and hence when the State Government had taken a policy decision in this regard the same may have to be decided in the backdrop of the Limitations of judicial review imposed on these Courts by settled principles. The institutional interest to be kept in view and equally so the Constitutional obligations also may have to be followed. The realities of Indian society cannot be lost sight of and Judiciary may have to function in the interest and larger welfare of the society in the backdrop of the Constitutional obligations enshrined in the Constitution. It is needless to overemphasize on the role which is expected to be played by the concerned Government Pleaders to represent the cases of Government in this regard.

In P.S. Manohar Naidu v. State Election Commission 2006 (4) ALT 607.at para 8 it was observed:

The Constitutional Courts are bound to discharge, their obligations, may be to the displeasure of a couple of persons. Persons count little. Working of the institutions and working of the system would be more important. Men may come and men may go, but institutions survive. Let not the institutions be degraded. All political parties are equal. The peoples' popular democracy to be protected at any cost. The views already expressed by this Court need not be repeated again. Let the democratic institutions function in this country with all vigor and vitality. Let the independent judiciary discharge its constitutional duties to the expectations of the common man. Let not the constitutional functionaries water down the basic fundamental democratic values.

The decisions in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India : [1998]2SCR795 . Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute : 2005CriLJ659 . Rajendra Sail v. Madhaya Pradesh High Court Bar Association : 2005CriLJ2585 . and In Re Arundhati Roy v. Union of India : 2002CriLJ1792 . may also be referred to in this context.

9. While dealing with Contempt Cases of this nature, the primary aspects of the contempt power and the jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to be kept in mind. The dignity and the majesty of this Court as a Court of Record also cannot be lost sight of. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and also the respective stands taken by the learned Senior Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2, keeping the dignity and the majesty of this Institution in view and also in the light of the fact that such powers may have to be exercised very sparingly and cautiously, this Court is inclined to drop further proceedings in this suo motu Contempt Case with the above observations referred to supra.

10. Accordingly the suo motu Contempt Case is hereby closed.