t Petition No 8118 of 1983
Under article 129 of the Constitution read with Section 15 of the 
762 Subhash Sharma N M Popli and K R R Pillai for the petitioner
section N Kacker and Altaf Ahmad for Respondent No 1
M C Bhandare E C Agarwala and Mrs Indira Sawhney for Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD CJ
This is a petition asking that the respondents be committed for contempt for certain statements allegedly made by Respondent 1 who is the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir
Respondent 2 is the Editor of a newspaper called Daily Kashmir Times in which those statements were published while Respondent 3 is its correspondent
In the issue of the Daily Kashmir Times dated November 13 1982 a news item appeared under the caption CM asks engineers to forcibly occupy club building
According to the report the Chief Minister while addressing the annual general meeting of the Institute of Engineers said that the engineers should occupy a certain building forcibly as it would not be possible for them to evict the Amar Singh Club through the normal legal process and that he would provide the necessary police assistance for that purpose
The report says that the Chief Minister advised the Institute of Engineers to move quickly in the matter before the management of the Club could obtain a stay order from the Court
Another news item appeared in the same newspaper on November 23 1982 under the caption Chief Minister says he will never accept courts  stay orders
According to the report the Chief Minister while addressing a rally of Judicial Employees  Welfare Association denounced and ridiculed the judiciary by saying that justice is being bought in the judicial courts
Taking exception to the frequent stay orders issued by the Courts against the Government the Chief Minister is alleged to have said I will never honour these stay orders even if I am hanged that justice could be bought with money and that this task could be performed conveniently by any leading lawyer
The news item concludes by saying that later the Chief Minister expressed his regret to the Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court who were present at the meeting explaining that the strong words used by him were the voice of his conscience but otherwise he had the greatest regard 763 for the judiciary and that he only wanted quick justice for the people
On March 18 1983 a notice was issued by this Court to the respondents asking them to show cause why action under the should not be taken against them
Since one of the respondents is a Chief Minister we assumed that there would be no difficulty in serving the notice upon him and he would file his reply promptly in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against him
But until September 26 1983 no counter affidavit was filed in the matter
When the Contempt Petition was called out on that date Mr Altaf Ahmed accepted the notice on behalf of the Chief Minister
On that date the Court directed the Chief Minister to file his counter affidavit within four weeks
On October 21 1983 the Registry submitted a report to the Court that Mr Altaf Ahmed had not yet filed his appearance for the Chief Minister
On November 21 1983 an affidavit dated November 9 1983 of the Chief Minister was taken on record
Since the Chief Minister denied by that affidavit that he had made the kind of statements attributed to him we issued a specific direction that Respondent 2 the Editor of Daily Kashmir Times should appear in person before the Court on November 28 1983
That was with a view to obtaining his explanation as to how the newspaper came to publish the various statements which the Chief Minister denied he had ever made
Respondent 2 appeared before us on November 28 1983 and stuck to the version published in the newspaper
In the light of that we reverted to the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Minister when we found that it did not traverse the allegations of the petitioners satisfactorily
We therefore directed him to file a further affidavit dealing with the allegations against him clearly and specifically
In pursuance of that direction Respondent I filed an affidavit dated December 14 1983
By his affidavit dated January 9 1984 Respondent 2 has adhered to his original stand that the report which appeared in the Daily Kashmir Times was true and correct
According to him the Chief Minister did make the various statements complained of and that his denial is untrue
If we were satisfied that the Chief Minister had made the statements attributed to him it would have been a serious matter
Then we could not have dismissed the peroration as an ill tempered 764 outburst of an uninformed person
Considering the high position which Chief Ministers occupy in the public life of our country their words and deeds have to be presumed to be intended
The defence that what was said or done was not intended is not open to persons occupying high public offices
The formal expression of regard for the courts under the pressure of a contempt notice becomes a mere escape if speeches and writings betray defiance of judicial authority and constitute an exhortation to the public to disregard orders passed by courts
But the Chief Minister denies to have made the utterances as stoutly as the editor asserts that the reports of the speeches published in his newspaper are true
There is word against word and no preponderating circumstance which objectively compels the acceptance of the word of one in performance to the word of the other
We have two responsible persons before us who pursue honourable professions one is the Chief Minister of a State and the other is the editor of a newspaper
Both cannot be true in their contentions before us
One of them has clearly violated the law of contempt
If the Chief Minister said what is alleged he is in contempt
If he has not the editor has committed contempt by publishing a false report of a scurrilous speech that was never made
In face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more it is difficult to decide who is right
On one hand is the tendency to ridicule the system of justice and malign those who administer it
On the other is the propensity of the fourth estate for some little sensation and its political involvement
When political considerations pollute the stream of life sifting truth from falsehood becomes a formidable and forbidding task In these circumstances we are unable to record a positive finding that the allegation that the Chief Minister made the particular statements is proved beyond a reasonable doubt
What is involved in this petition is criminal contempt and therefore it is necessary to apply that particular standard of proof
There is one circumstance which puts us on our guard in accepting the contempt petition
That circumstance is that though during the course of arguments it was stated at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judges of the Jammu  Kashmir High Court were present at one of the functions and that they walked out of the meeting on hearing the abusive  language used by the Chief Minister no attempt was made to establish the truth of that assertion
A walk out by Judges of the High Court during the speech of the Chief Minister or soon after he ended it would have lent considerable weight to the allegation that the statements made by the Chief Minister were open to grave objection
765 But we record the finding of not guilty  with a caveat
It is not for us to advise a chosen representative of the people as to how he should conduct his public affairs and what precautions he should take in order to protect himself from similar allegations in future
But it causes us some surprise that there is on official record whatsoever of the speeches made by the Chief Minister at the two functions
He was invited at those functions in his capacity as the Chief Minister
And admittedly he spoke at those functions
With the little knowledge that we have of these matters we suppose that when a Chief Minister makes a formal speech an official record of the speech is generally available
If he speaks from a prepared text that forms the record of what he spoke
But whether he speaks from a text or speaks extempore it is unlikely in the times in which we live that a speech made by a Chief Minister on a formal occasion will not be taken down or tape recorded
Tapes have become a part of our life public and private sometimes to the point of annoyance
In times when mechanical gadgets have become the order of the day and taping  especially has become a common practice it is surprising that no one taped or took down the speeches of a person as important as the Chief Minister
No written record kept contemporaneously or prepared soon after is cited to contradict the allegation that the Chief Minister scandalized the Courts and assailed the character of Judges
As we said it is not for us to advise any one least of all those who in the discharge of their onerous responsibilities have their own select group of advisers
But we cannot restrain the observation that it is so much safer for persons who have to make frequent public appearances to have their utterances duly put on paper before of soon after the event
For those who have nothing to conceal or fear that is a prudent course of action
For the rest a constant friction with the law of contempt is inevitable
The former will lay their cards on the table and be cleared
The latter have to live in the hope that the rigorous standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt  will act as their saviour
The latter course of conduct leaves much to be desired from the point of view of men of honour
Courts are not astute to reason to their power to punish any one for criminal contempt
But that reluctance should not be overtaxed
The reluctance of courts to resort to the provisions of the springs from their regard for the rule of law
The role of a prosecutor is incompatible with the role of a judge
In matters involving allegations of criminal contempt of Court these roles are combined and the Court has to act both as a 766 prosecutor and as a judge
True that it acts in order to uphold the authority of law and not in defence of this or that particular judge
But an order punishing a person for such contempt is likely to create the impression more so in the mind of lay observers that the judges have acted in defence of themselves
Courts do not like to create such an impression even unwittingly
Secondly the right of free speech is an important right of the citizen in the exercise of which he is entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the infirmities from which any institution suffers including institutions which administer justice
Indeed the right to offer healthy and constructive criticism which is fair in spirit must be left unimpaired in the interest of public institutions themselves
Critics are instruments of reforms not those actuated by malice but those who are inspired by the spirit of public weal
Bona fide criticism of any system or institution is aimed at inducing the administrators of that system or institution to look inwards and improve its public image
Courts do not like to assume the posture that they are above criticism and that their functioning needs no improvement
But it is necessary to make it clear that though law does not restrain the expression of disapprobation against what is done in or by courts of law the liberty of free expression is not to be confounded with a licence to make unfounded allegations of corruption against the judiciary
The abuse of the liberty of free speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt
We would also like to remind those who criticise the judiciary that it has no forum from which to defend itself
The legislature can act in defence of itself from the floor of the House
It enjoys privileges which are beyond the reach of law
The executive is all powerful and has ample resources and media at its command to explain its actions and if need be to counter attack
Those who attack the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an institution which is indispensable for the survival of the rule of law but which has no means of defending itself
In the very nature of things it cannot engage itself in an open war nor indulge in releasing contradictions
The sward of justice is in the hands of the Goddess of Justice not in the hands of mortal judges
Therefore Judges must receive the due protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character
The Chief Minister has stated in his affidavit that he spoke extempore
We are not on that
In the first place extempore speeches confer no greater immunity on the speaker than the 767 speeches made from prepared texts
Secondly extempore speeches are not to be made without the application of a careful mind
That is not the definition of an extempore speech
Thirdly more the extempore greater the need to keep a written record of the spoken word
In the written record lies the safety of the public speaker though not perhaps the benefit of posterity
In the result we dismiss the contempt petition
PBR Petition dismissed


Summary:
A news item appeared in the newspaper of which respondent No 2 was its editor that while addressing a rally of Judicial Employees  Welfare Association the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir denounced and ridiculed the judiciary stating that Justice is being bought in judicial Courts and that he would never honour the Court s stay orders because justice could be bought with money
The news item also stated that the Chief Minister expressed his regret to the Chief Justice and other Judges who were present at the meeting explaining that the strong words used by him were the voice of his conscience and that he had the greatest regard for the judiciary
The petitioner filed the contempt petition against the Chief Minister
Although a show cause notice was issued under the to the Chief Minister respondent on March 18 1983 no counter affidavit was filed till September 26 1983
When the contempt petition was called out on that day his advocate accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent
Eventually on November 21 1983 the affidavit of the Chief Minister dated November 9 1983 was taken on record
While the Chief Minister denied having made the statements attributed to him the Editor asserted that the version published in the newspaper was true
On the question whether the statements published in the newspaper amounted to contempt of court
Dismissing the petition  HELD What is involved in this case is criminal contempt and therefore it is necessary to apply the particular standard of proof required to be established in a criminal case
Respondent No1 on the material placed on record cannot be held to be guilty of the charge
764F 761 In matters involving allegations of criminal contempt the Court has to act both as a prosecutor and as a Judge
It does so to uphold the authority of law and not in defence of a particular Judge
Secondly the right of free speech is an important right of the citizen and bona fide criticism of any system or institution is aimed at inducing the administrators of that system or institution to look inwards and improve its public image
Courts do not like to assume the posture that they are above criticism
At the same time though law does not restrain the expression of disapprobation against what is done in or by Courts of law the liberty of free expression is not to be confounded with a licence to make unfounded allegations of corruption against the judiciary
The abuse of the liberty of free speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt
Those who criticise the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an institution which is indispensable for the survival of the rule of law but which has no means of defending itself
Therefore Judges must receive the protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character
765H 766A B E F G If the Chief Minister said what was alleged in the news item he was in contempt if he had not the Editor had committed a contempt by publishing a false report of a scurrilous speech that was never made
In the face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more it is difficult to decide who is right
On the one hand is the tendency to ridicule the system of justice and malign those who administer it on the other is the propensity of the fourth estate for some little sensation and its political involvement
When political considerations pollute the stream of life sifting truth from falsehood becomes a formidable and forbidding task
In these circumstances it is difficult to record a positive finding that the allegation that the Chief Minister made the particular statement is proved beyond a reasonable doubt
764D F Although the petitioners had asserted that the Judges of the High Court were present at one of the functions and that they walked out of the meeting on hearing the abusive language used by the Chief Minister no attempt was made to establish the truth of that assertion
A walkout by Judges of the High Court during the speech of the Chief Minister or soon thereafter would have lent considerable weight to the allegation that the statements made by the Chief Minister were open to grave objection
764G H When a Chief Minister makes a formal speech an official record of the speech if it were a prepared speech or even if it were an extempore speech should have been kept
No one taped or took down the speeches of a person as important as the Chief Minister
No written record kept contemporaneously or prepared soon after is cited to contradict the allegation that the Chief Minister scandalised the Courts and assailed the character of Judges
765B D