Case: P.N. Dua Vs. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors.

the law gives to some problem is regarded by many people as unjust. Lord Cross further observed that there must be no prejudging of the issues in a case is one thing. To say that no one must in any circumstances exert any pressure on a party to litigation to induce him to act in relation to the litigation in a way in which he would otherwise not choose to act is another and a very different thing. Lord Cross at page 87 of the report observed as follows: In conclusion I would say that I disagree with the views expressed by Lord Denning MR and Phillimore LJ 1973 1 All E.R. 815 as to the role of the Attorney-General in cases of alleged contempt of court. If he takes them up he does not do so as a Minister of the Crown putting the authority of the Crown behind the complaint-but as amicus curiae bringing to the notice of the court some matter of which he considers that the court shall be informed in the interests of the administration of justice. It is, I think, most desirable that in civil as well as in criminal cases anyone who thinks that a criminal contempt of court has been or is about to be committed should, if possible, place the facts before the Attorney-General for him to consider whether or not those facts appear to disclose a contempt of court of sufficient gravity to warrant his bringing the matter to the notice of the court. Of course, in some cases it may be essential if an application is to be made at all for it to be made promptly and there may be no time for the person affected by the contempt to put the facts before the attorney before moving himself. Again the fact that the attorney declines to take up the case will not prevent the complainant from seeking to persuade the court that notwithstanding the refusal of the attorney to act the matter complained of does in fact constitute a contempt of which the court should take notice. Yet, again, of course, there may be cases where a serious contempt appears to have been committed but for one reason or another none of the parties affected by it wishes any action to be taken in respect of it. In such cases if the facts come to the knowledge of the attorney from some other source he will naturally himself bring the matter to the attention of the court. 43. Lord Cross has noticed in his speech that if the Attorney General declines to take up the case, it will not prevent the complainant from seeking to persuade the Court that notwithstanding refusal of the Attorney General to act, the matter complained of does, in fact, constitute a contempt of which the Court should take notice. But that does not derogate the rights of the individual to move the Court. See the observations of Lord Reid. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1986]159ITR856(SC) , the observations of the aforesaid decision in Thalidomide case were relied upon. 44. Reliance was also placed on the observations of the House of Lords in Gouriot and Ors v. H.M. Attorney General [1978] A C 435. There it held the initiation of litigation and the determination of the question whether it is a proper case for the Attorney General to proceed in, is a matter entirely beyond the jurisdiction of that or any other Court. It is a question which the law has made, to reside exclusively in the Attorney General. The House of Lords was reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in the celebrated case of Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] A C 435 where the House of Lords could find no legal basis for the lower courts attempt to outflank the Attorney Generals refusal to grant his fiat to Mr. Gouriet. In the Court of Appeal, all the three Judges, Denning M.R., Lawton and Ormrod LJ, upheld the plaintiffs claim for declaration and interim injunction even in the absence of fiat by the Attorney General. The statutory provisions were entirely different. It may be in the context that the Attorney General had to move in his discretion which is not justiciable. But in our opinion it is justiciable. English decisions are of persuasive value and we would prefer to rest out decision on the observations of Lord Denning in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and Ors. [1977] 1 Q.B. 729 though made in connection with the Attorney Generals discretion in giving consent in instituting a suit for injunction by a member of the public. In U.K. the position of Attorney General as a member of the Cabinet is different. There the contempt of Court is regulated by different statutory provisions which were examined by a Committee known as Phillimore Committee Report. See also the observations of Sikri J. as the Chief Justice then was, in C.K. Daphtary and Ors. (supra) at page 109 of the report. 45. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajagopal Rao v. Murtza Mutjahdi [1974] 1 ALT 170. We are unable to accept the ratio stated in view of the terms of Section 15 of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to the case of N. Venkataramanappa v. D.K. Naikar AIR1978Kant57 . It is also not possible to accept the position that under no circumstances the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General or Solicitor General cannot be enquired into. 46. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the allegation of bias which were made against the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, it appears that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General acted properly in declining to deal with the matter and the Court could deal with the matter on attention being drawn to this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. In the instant case we have examined the entire speech. In the speech Shri P. Shiv Shankar has examined the class composition of the Supreme Court. His view was that the class composition of any instrument indicates its pre-disposition, its prejudices. This is inevitable. Justice Holmes in his dissenting opinion in Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York 49 Lawyers Edition 195-198 U.S. 1904 had observed General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. That intuition more subtle than major premise is the pride and the prejudice of a human instrument of a Judge through which objectively the Judge seeks to administer justice according to law. So, therefore, in a study of accountability if class composition of the people manning the institution is analysed we forewarn ourselves of certain inclination it cannot be said that an expression or view or propagation of that view hampers the dignity of the Courts or impairs the administration of justice.11. The question of contempt of court by newspaper article criticising the Judges of the Court came up for consideration in the case of Re: Shri S. Mulgaokar [1978]3SCR162 . In order to appreciate the controversy in this case it has to be stated that the issue dated 13th December, 1977, of the Indian Express published a news item that the High Courts had reacted very strongly to the suggestion of introducing a code of judicial ethics and propriety and that so adverse has been the criticism that the Supreme Court Judges, some of whom had prepared the draft code, have disowned it. In its issue dated December 21, 1977 an article entitled behaving like a Judge was published which inter alia stated that the Supreme Court of India was packed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi with pliant and submissive judges except for a few. It was further stated that the suggestion that a code of ethics should be formulated by Judges themselves was so utterly inimical to the independence of the judiciary, violative of the Constitutional safeguards in that respect and offensive to the self-respect of the Judges as to make one wonder how it was conceived in the first place. A notice had been issued to the Editor-in-Chief of the Newspaper to show-cause why proceedings for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against him in respect of the above two news items.12. It was observed by Chief Justice Beg in that decision that national interest required that all criticisms of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. This should be a part of national ethics. The comments about Judges of the Supreme Court suggesting that they lack moral courage to the extent of having disowned what they had done or in other words, to the extent of uttering what was untrue, at least verge on contempt. None could say that such suggestions would not make Judges of this Court look ridiculous or even unworthy, in the estimation of the public, of the very high office they hold if they could so easily disown what they had done after having really done it. It was reiterated that the judiciary can not be immune from criticism. But, when that criticism was based on obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it could not be ignored. A decision on the question whether the discretion to take action for Contempt of Court should be exercised must depend on the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice agreed with the other two learned Judges in that decision that in those facts the proceedings should be dropped. Krishna Iyer, J. in his judgment observed that the Court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardised by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the Judges, where the attack was calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The Court must harmonise the constitutional values of free criticism, and the need for a fearless curial process and its presiding functionary, the judge. To criticise a judge fairly albeit fiercely, is no crime but a necessary right. Where freedom of expression subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it. The Court must avoid confusion between personal protection of a libelled judge and prevention of obstruction of public justice and the communitys confidence in that great process. The former is not contempt but latter is, although overlapping spaces abound. The fourth functional canon is that the Fourth Estate should be given free play within responsible limits even when the focus of its critical attention is the court, including the highest court. The fifth normative guideline for the Judges to observe is not to be hypersensitive even where distortions and criticisms overstep the limits, but to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, and the sixth consideration is that if the Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidator or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its sources and stream.13. It is well to remember the observations of Justice Brennan of U.S. Supreme Court (though made in the context of law of libel) in New York Times Company v. L.B. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 that it is a prized privilege to speak ones mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions and this opportunity should be afforded for vigorous advocacy no less than abstract discussion.14. Lord Denning in Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 W.L.R. 1204 observed as follows.Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.15. The aforesaid observations were made in respect of an article written by Mr. Quintin Hogg in Punch (as later Lord Hailsham then was) more or less in a critical language as the Honble Ministers speech in the instant case.21. If anyone draws attention to this danger and aspect and measures an institution by the class content he does not minimize its dignity or denigrate its authority. Looked in that perspective though at places little intemperate, the statement of the Minister in this case cannot be said to amount to interference with the administration of justice and as to amount to contempt of court. The Ministers statement does not interfere with the administration of justice. Administration of justice in this country stands on surer foundation.25. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors. 1987CriLJ1182 . In that case there was publication in the Indian Express which carried the news that Mr. Mohammed Yunus, Chairman, Trade Fair Authority of India said that the Supreme Court Judge who held that the singing of the National Anthem was not compulsory had no right to be called either an Indian or a Judge. The Conscientious Group approached this Court for contempt alleging that the conduct of Mr. Mohammed Yunus in making certain adverse comments about the Judges who delivered the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1986 National Anthem case 1986CriLJ1736 constituted criminal contempt and it should be so dealt with. Notice on this petition was issued. When the matter subsequently came up before a Bench of three Judges consisting of Bhagwati, C.J., Oza and K.N. Singh, JJ., the contemnor filed a reply stating that the petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had not obtained the consent in writing of the Attorney General as required under Section 15 of the Act. It appears that the petitioner was directed by the Division Bench to move the Attorney General for his consent and the petition was adjourned. The Attorney General on being moved by the petitioner for the grant of consent replied to the petitioner stating that since he was himself a party in his capacity as Attorney General in the National Anthem case, it was not appropriate for him to deal with the petitioners application. When the case later on came up before the same three Judges Bench on December 12, 1986, the learned Judges directed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to refile the application after obtaining consent of the Attorney General as soon as the National Anthem case was over. It was further observed by this Court that everyone is entitled to criticise the judgment of the court but no one should attack the Judges who delivered the judgment as that denigrates the judicial institution and in the long term impairs the democratic process.26. Subsequently the petitioner in that case filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5244 of 1986 praying for recalling the aforesaid order on the ground that at the time when he applied to the court for withdrawal of the petition he was not aware that under Rule 3(c) of the Rules framed by this Court, the contempt petition could be maintained with the consent of the Solicitor General, if the Attorney General, for any reason, was not in a position to give consent to the filing of the petition. He was so allowed. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Solicitor General. But the Solicitor General declined to give the consent in public interest. He gave certain reasons in support of his conclusion. The Court in the aforesaid decision by scrutinising reasons was of the opinion that the reasons stated by the Solicitor General refusing to grant consent could not be said to be irrelevant and the petition was dismissed. In dismissing this application this Court observed at page 93 of the report No doubt, by the last of the sentence of the said Order, the Bench has also observed that the petitioner will not be without remedy, if the Solicitor General refuses his consent on any irrelevant ground but this only means that such a refusal can be called in question before this Court by the petitioner by appropriate process. In other words, the effect of the decision is that the reasons given by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in giving or not giving his consent were justiciable.27. As we have mentioned before the speech of the Minister has to be read in its entirety. In the speech as we have set out hereinbefore it appears that Shri P. Shiv Shankar was making a study of the attitude of this Court. In the portion set out hereinbefore, it was stated that the Supreme Court was composed of the element from the elite class. Whether it is factually correct or not is another matter. In our public life, where the champions of the downtrodden and the politicians are mostly from the so-called elite class, if the class composition is analysed, it may reveal interesting factors as to whether elite class is dominant as the champions of the oppressed or of social legislations and the same is the position in the judiciary. But the Minister went on to say that because the Judges had their unconcealed sympathy for the haves interpreted the expression compensation in the manner they did. The expression unconcealed is unfortunate. But this is also an expression of opinion about an institutional pattern. Then the Minister went on to say that because of this the word compensation in Article 31 was interpreted contrary to the spirit and the intendment of the Constitution. The Constitution therefore had to be amended by the 1st, 14th and 17th Amendments to remove this oligarchic approach of the Supreme Court with little or no help. The inter-action of the decisions of this Court and the Constitutional amendments have been viewed by the Minister in his speech, but that is nothing new. This by itself does not affect the administration of justice. On the other hand, such a study perhaps is important for the understanding of the evolution of the constitutional development. The next portion to which reference may be made where the speaker has referred to Holmes Alexander in his column entitled 9 Men of Terror Squad making a frontal attack on the functions of the U.S. Supreme Court. There was a comparison after making the quotation as we have set out hereinbefore: One should ask the question how true Holmes Alexander was in the Indian context. This is also a poser on the performance of the Supreme Court. According to the speaker twenty years of valuable time was lost in this confrontation presented by the judiciary in introducing and implementing basic agrarian reforms for removal of poverty what is the ultimate result. The nation did not exhibit the political will to implement the land reform laws. The removal of the Maharajas and Rajas and privy purses were criticised because of the view taken by this Court which according to the speaker was contrary to the whole national upsurge. This is a study in the historical perspective. Then he made a reference to the Keshavananda Bharatis and Golaknaths cases and observed that a representative of the elitist culture of this country, ably supported by industrialists and beneficiaries of independence, got higher compensation by the intervention of the Supreme Court in Coopers case. This is also a criticism of the judgment in R.C. Coopers case. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but criticism of judgments is permissible in a free society. There is, however, one paragraph which appears to us to be rather intemperate and that is to the following effect:Antisocial elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their heaven in the Supreme Court.28. This, of course, if true, is a criticism of the laws. The Supreme Court as it is bound to do has implemented the laws and in implementing the laws, it is a tribute to the Supreme Court that it has not discriminated between persons and persons. Criminals are entitled to be judged in accordance with law. If antisocial elements and criminals have benefited by decisions of the Supreme Court, the fault rests with the laws and the loopholes in the legislation. The Courts are not deterred by such criticisms.29. Bearing in mind the trend in the law of contempt as noticed before, as well as some of the decisions noticed by Krishna Iyer, J. in S. Mulgaokars case (supra) the speech of the Minister read in its proper perspective, did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair administration of justice. In some portions of the speech the language used could have been avoided by the Minister having the background of being a former Judge of the High Court. The Minister perhaps could have achieved his purpose by making his language mild but his facts deadly. With these observations, it must be held that there was no imminent danger of interference with the administration of justice, nor of bringing a institution into disrepute. In that view it must be held that the Minister was not guilty of contempt of this Court.30. The view we have taken on this aspect of the matter would have been sufficient to dispose of this petition. But another question of law of some importance has arisen in this matter. Under the Act in case of criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 which is not the facts of this case, namely, a contempt in the fact of this Court or a High Court, this Court or the High Court may take action either on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General which in relation to this Court means the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or any other person with the consent of the Attorney General in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, cognizance for criminal contempt could be taken by the Court by three methods namely, on its own motion, or on the motion of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or on motion by any other person with the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Therefore, the only course open to a citizen for initiating proceedings for contempt where the Court does not take cognizance on its motion or where the Attorney General or the Solicitor General does not take action is to move for consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. The question is, does it cast a duty upon the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to consider application for grant of such consent and whether the granting or non-granting of such consent is justiciable by the Court and if so whether the question of non-granting can be brought up in a rolled application moved by a person to bring it to the notice of the Court to take action suo motu and at the same time to consider whether in the same proceeding the action of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in granting or not granting consent can be challenged or it must be always by an independent proceeding. The consent certainly is linked up with contempt proceedings. Indeed Mohammed Yunus case (supra) was dismissed because no consent was obtained. In the instant case the Minister has taken the plea that consideration of this case cannot be taken because there is no consent of the law officers. Does it or does it not tend to interfere with due course of judicial proceedings in terms of Clause (ii) of Section 3(c) of the Act? If so is it justiciable in these proceedings? Attorney General and Solicitor General of India in respect of this Court occupy positions of great importance and relevance. Attorney General, though unlike England is not a member of the Cabinet yet is a friend of the Court, and in some respects acts as the friend, philosopher and guide of the Court. (See Article 76 of the Constitution). Yet the Act vests him with certain discretions. All statutory discretions are justiciable in a society governed by the rule of law. One must remember the remarks of Thomas Fuller-Be you ever so high, the law is above you and this Court is the finder and interpreter of that law in cases of this nature with the assistance of Attorney General and in his absence or inability the Solicitor General.31. It is well to remember what Burke said in the House of Commons in 1772 in connection with the motion for select committee for enquiry into the affairs of the East India Company and Clive. He said that when discretionary power is lodged in the hands of any man or class of men, experience proves that it will always be abused. Where no laws exist men must be arbitrary and very necessary acts of government will often be, in such cases, represented by the interested and malevolent as instances of wanton oppression (Clive of India- Nirad C. Chaudhry, page 381). Times have changed here; the discretion is vested on a very high dignitary and a friend of the Court, yet it is subject to scrutiny.It is not a question of making the Attorney General or the Solicitor General a party to a contempt proceeding in the sense that they are liable for contempt, but if the hearing of the contempt proceedings can be better proceeded by obtaining the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General and the question of justiciability of giving the consent is interlinked on the analogy of Order II Rule I of the CPC which has application to a civil proceeding and not to a criminal proceeding, it is permissible to go into this question. Indeed, in the case of Conscientious Group (supra) precisely this was done, where an application for contempt was filed and which was revived pursuant to the previous order and the Court while doing so had reserved the right to consider on the previous occasion the question if the Solicitor General refuses to give consent improperly or on irrelevant ground the Court could consider that question. In the case of Conscientious Group (supra) the Court went into the reasons given by the Solicitor General declining consent. this Court in that case held on examination that such consent was properly refused. This is a complete answer to the contention that in a contempt petition the grounds for either giving consent or not giving consent or for not considering the application for consent are justiciable and that question can not be gone into in that proceeding though it must be emphasised in that proceeding that the Solicitor General was not made a party to the proceeding. In my opinion it will be more appropriate for an officer of the Court whose action is being investigated to be made a party in the proceedings otherwise it would be violative of the rule of audi alteram partem.It is not possible to accept this submission. It was contended that there was no doctrine of necessity applicable in this case because even if the Attorney General or the Solicitor General does not give consent a party is not without a remedy and can bring this to the notice of the Court. Discretion vested in law officers of this Court to be used for a public purpose in a society governed by rule of law is justiciable. Indeed, it was gone into in the case of Conscientious Group (supra) and it will be more appropriate that it should be gone into upon notice to the law officer concerned. It is a case where appropriate ground for refusal to act can be looked into by the Court. It cannot be said as was argued by Shri Ganguly that the refusal to grant consent decides no right and it is not reviewable. Refusal to give consent closes one channel of initiation of contempt. As mentioned hereinbefore there are three different channels, namely (1) the Court taking cognizance on its own motion; (2) on the motion by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General; and (3) by any other person with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. In this case apparently the Attorney General and the Solicitor General have not moved on their own. The petitioner could not move in accordance with law without the consent of Attorney General and the Solicitor General though he has a right to move and the third is the court taking notice suo motu. But irrespective of that there was right granted to the citizen of the country to move a motion with the consent. In this case whether consent was to be given or not was not considered for the reasons stated by the Attorney General. Those reasons are linked up with the Court taking up the matter on its own motion, these are interlinked. In that view of the matter these are justiciable and indeed it may be instructive to consider why this practice grew up of having the consent. This was explained in S.K. Sarkar v. V.C. Misra. 1981CriLJ283 where Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Court observed at page 339 of the report that the whole object of prescribing these procedural modes of taking cognizance under Section 15 of the Act was to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court or the Supreme Court being wasted by frivolous complaints of contempt of court. Frequent use of this suo motu power on the information furnished by an incompetent petition, may render these procedural safeguards provided in Sub-section (2), otiose. In such cases, the High Court may be well advised to avail of the advice and assistance of the Advocate-General before initiating proceedings. In this connection the Court referred to the observations of Sanyal Committee appointed to examine this question where it was observed: In the case of criminal contempt, not being contempt committed in the face of the court, we are of the opinion that it would lighten the burden of the court, without in any way interfering with the sanctity of the administration of justice, if action is taken on a motion by some other agency. Such a course of action would give considerable assurance to the individual charged and the public at large. Indeed, some High Courts have already made rules for the association of the Advocate-General in some categories of cases at least.... It was the practice that except where the Court feels inclined to take action suo motu parties were entitled to move only by the consent. If no justiciable reason was given in an appropriate case and such consent was refused can it be said that it would not be proper for the Court to investigate the same?38. The question of contempt of court came up for consideration in the case of C.K. Daphtary and Ors. v. O.P. Gupta and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R. 76. In that case a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution was filed by Shri C.K. Daphtary and three other advocates bringing to the notice of this Court alleged contempt committed by the respondents. There this Court held that under Article 129 of the Constitution this Court had the power to punish for contempt of itself and under Article 143(2) it could investigate any such contempt. this Court reiterated that the Constitution made this Court the guardian of fundamental rights. this Court further held that under the existing law of contempt of court any publication which was calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law would amount to contempt of court. A scurrilous attack on a judge, in respect of a judgment or past conduct has in our country the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary; and if confidence in Judiciary goes administration of justice definitely suffers. In that case a pamphlet was alleged to have contained statements amounting to contempt of the Court. As the Attorney General did not move in the matter, the President of the Supreme Court Bar and the other petitioners chose to bring the matter to the notice of the Court. It was alleged that the said President and the other members of the Bar have no locus standi. this Court held that the Court could issue a notice suo motu. The President of the Supreme Court Bar and other petitioners were perfectly entitled to bring to the notice of the Court any contempt of the Court. The first respondent referred to Lord Shawcross Committees recommendation in U.K. that proceedings should be instituted only if the Attorney-General in his discretion considers them necessary. This was only a recommendation made in the light of circumstances prevailing in England. But that is not the law in India, this Court reiterated. It has to be borne that decision was rendered on 19th March, 1971 and the present Act in India was passed on 24th December, 1971. Therefore that decision cannot be of any assistance. We have noticed Sanyal Committees recommendations in India as to why the Attorney General should be associated with it, and thereafter in U.K. there was report of Phillimore Committee in 1974. In India the reason for having the consent of the Attorney General was examined and explained by Sanyal Committee Report as noticed before.Therefore cognizance could be taken suo motu and information contained in the application by a private individual could be utilised. As we have mentioned hereinbefore indubitably cognizance could be taken suo motu by the Court but members of the public have also the right to move the Court. That right of bringing to the notice of the Court is dependent upon consent being given either by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General and if that consent is withheld without reasons or without consideration of that right granted to any other person under Section 15 of the Act that could be investigated on an application made to the Court.In that case under an order passed by the appellant, a Magistrate, one G was put in possession of some property on October 14, 1955. In revision the order was set aside by the High Court on August 27, 1957 and the opposite party S applied on November 20, 1957 to the appellant for redelivery of possession. G applied to the High Court for a review of its previous order and on November 25, 1957, the application was admitted and an interim stay was granted of the proceedings before the appellant. A telegram addressed to a pleader, not the counsel for G, was filed along with the application. The appellant refused to act on this application and telegram and on November 27, 1957, he allowed the application of S for restitution. On November 28, 1957, a copy of the order of the High Court was received and thereupon the writ for redelivery of possession was not issued. The High Court convicted the appellant for contempt of court for passing the order for restitution on November 27, when the High Court had stayed the proceedings. The appellant appealed to this Court and impleaded the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court as respondents. this Court held that the appellant was not guilty of contempt of court. It further held that in a contempt matter the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court should not be made parties and the title of such a proceeding should be In re... the alleged contemnor. Mudholkar, J. speaking for the Court observed at page 321 of the report that the decision of Judges given in a contempt matter is like any other decision of those Judges, that is, in matters which come up before them by way of suit, petition, appeal or reference. Since that was the real position, this Court observed that there was no warrant for the practice which was in vogue in India there, and which had been in vogue for over a century, of making the Chief Justice and Judges parties to an appeal against the decision of a High Court in a contempt matter. The said observations were sought to be relied in aid of the proposition that where the decision of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General was involved, they were not necessary or proper parties. Reliance on this decision for this purpose is entirely misconceived. Where an appeal comes to this Court, which is a judicial decision, the Judges who rendered the decision are not necessary parties. There is no lis between a suitor and a judge in a judicial adjudication. But the position is entirely different where there is suitor claiming the exercise of a statutory right in his favour which he alleges is hampered by an official act of a named official in the Act. In respect of justiciability of that act of the official there is a lis and if that lis is inter-linked with the proceeding for contempt, there is warrant for making him party in that proceeding though the prayers and the notice must be issued differently.41. As mentioned hereinbefore in the case of S.C. Sarkar v. V.C. Misra (supra) this Court had observed that it may well be advices to avail of the advised and assistance of the Advocate General before initiating proceedings.Shri Ganguly appearing for the Solicitor General sought to urge before us that advice and assistance could not be compelled by a suitor.This cannot be agreed to. The statute gives a right to a suitor to move the Court in one of the contingencies for contempt or bring to the notice of the Court the contempt with the advice and assistance of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. If such right is not considered on relevant materials then that action is justiciable in an appropriate proceeding for contempt.43. Lord Cross has noticed in his speech that if the Attorney General declines to take up the case, it will not prevent the complainant from seeking to persuade the Court that notwithstanding refusal of the Attorney General to act, the matter complained of does, in fact, constitute a contempt of which the Court should take notice. But that does not derogate the rights of the individual to move the Court. See the observations of Lord Reid. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1986]159ITR856(SC) , the observations of the aforesaid decision in Thalidomide case were relied upon.44. Reliance was also placed on the observations of the House of Lords in Gouriot and Ors v. H.M. Attorney General [1978] A C 435. There it held the initiation of litigation and the determination of the question whether it is a proper case for the Attorney General to proceed in, is a matter entirely beyond the jurisdiction of that or any other Court. It is a question which the law has made, to reside exclusively in the Attorney General. The House of Lords was reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in the celebrated case of Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] A C 435 where the House of Lords could find no legal basis for the lower courts attempt to outflank the Attorney Generals refusal to grant his fiat to Mr. Gouriet. In the Court of Appeal, all the three Judges, Denning M.R., Lawton and Ormrod LJ, upheld the plaintiffs claim for declaration and interim injunction even in the absence of fiat by the Attorney General. The statutory provisions were entirely different. It may be in the context that the Attorney General had to move in his discretion which is not justiciable. But in our opinion it is justiciable. English decisions are of persuasive value and we would prefer to rest out decision on the observations of Lord Denning in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and Ors. [1977] 1 Q.B. 729 though made in connection with the Attorney Generals discretion in giving consent in instituting a suit for injunction by a member of the public. In U.K. the position of Attorney General as a member of the Cabinet is different. There the contempt of Court is regulated by different statutory provisions which were examined by a Committee known as Phillimore Committee Report. See also the observations of Sikri J. as the Chief Justice then was, in C.K. Daphtary and Ors. (supra) at page 109 of the report.45. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajagopal Rao v. Murtza Mutjahdi [1974] 1 ALT 170. We are unable to accept the ratio stated in view of the terms of Section 15 of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to the case of N. Venkataramanappa v. D.K. Naikar AIR1978Kant57 . It is also not possible to accept the position that under no circumstances the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General or Solicitor General cannot be enquired into.46. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the allegation of bias which were made against the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, it appears that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General acted properly in declining to deal with the matter and the Court could deal with the matter on attention being drawn to this Court.