On the other hand, for the respondents, it is contended that, in the decisions relied upon for the petitioners, the publications alleged to constitute contempt were of such a nature that they were seen to affect the course of actions actually pending in courts, that even otherwise the decision of ; the House of Lords has been widely criticised and should not be followed and that the views expressed by Lord Denning, M.R. in Attorney General vs BBC, though reversed by the House of Lords in by the American Courts in Bridges vs State of California, and in John D. Pennekamp vs Stale of Florida, ; should be preferred as more appropriate to present day conditions, particularly in the context of the PG NO 237 freedom of press guaranteed under Act 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and also incorporated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.