IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA OCR. MISC (DB) No.6 of 2009 Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey s/o late Jagdish Pandey, Advocate, Patna High Court r/o Boring Canal Road, Patna -1 …….. Petitioner Versus Smt.Rabri Devi w/o Laloo Prasad, Ex-Chief Minister, Bihar and presently leader of opposition, r/o 10, Circular Road, Patna – 1 ………..Opp. Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate (in person) For the Opp. Party: Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sumant Singh, Advocate Mr. Amirban Kundu, Advocate Mr. Krishna Narayan Jha, Advocate Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Advocate 4 12/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel Mr. Rana Pratap Singh appearing for the sole opposite party, the alleged contemnor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if some more time is given to him he can find out materials to show that even in subsequent speech at Jamui the opposite party made comments of similar nature involving courts. The materials available on record show us a press report of the “Times of India” in which the press has reported the comments made by the sole opposite party in following words; “ …………………. “the court, 2 media and the governor” were under the control of Nitish Kumar.” From the press report it appears that in course of a speech during election campaign the opposite party as a political figure made the aforesaid remarks besides making other statements against the political opponents. The press report also contains a box news that a First Information Report was registered against the sole opposite party under section 171 G of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly making some remarks in her speech. On behalf of the opposite party a show cause has been filed. In paragraph -2 of the said show cause it has been pleaded that she has very high regards for the judiciary of the country and particularly, the courts created under the judicial system of our country. In the same paragraph she has also tendered unqualified apology to the courts for her remarks which she has described as unintentional or unwilful. Considering the background of aforesaid speech made during election campaign, a criminal case already lodged against the sole opposite party and the 3 unqualified apology noticed above, we do not propose to proceed further in the matter. It goes without saying that any political leader of some standing must be careful in making any remarks involving the courts. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Neyaz/ ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (S. K. Sharma, J.)