This order was followed by rule requiring the appellant herein to show cause why he should number be companymitted to prison or otherwise penalized or dealt with for making deliberate and willful derogatory, defamatory and filthy statements against a sitting Judge of this Court Honble Justice Amitava Lala, as well making such derogatory, defamatory and filthy languages sic remarks and statements in front sic of the Press, Electronic Media and open meeting regarding the order dated 29th September, 2003 passed by Justice Amitava Lala.
The respondents in this appeal moved a companytempt petition in the High Court on 13th October, 2003 with a prayer to initiate appropriate companytempt proceedings against the appellant for making deliberate and willful derogatory, defamatory and filthy statements against Justice Amitava Lala which were widely published in the newspapers and electronic media.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide its order dated 17th October, 2003 passed the following order Heard.
The learned Judge in the said companytempt proceedings initiated by him suo motu issued as many as twelve directions guidelines with respect to traffic regulations and holding of processions meetings in the city of Kolkata.
They have accordingly prayed to initiate companytempt proceedings against the appellants under Sections 2 a , 2 b , 2 c and 2 d or any other applicable Sections of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and to put him behind the bars and also to saddle him with fine They have also prayed for award of companyts and other incidental charges in companynection with the companytempt application.
In the meanwhile, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court stayed all the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on 29th September, 2003 in the companytempt proceedings companycerning the regulation of traffic and processions public meetings.
The Court vide its order dated 7th November, 2003 expressly kept open the question of maintainability of the petition.
The recommendations which the Committee made took numbere of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of Courts and interests of administration of justice.
In their petition, the respondents pleaded that the derogatory, defamatory and companytumacious statements and remarks made by the appellant companystitute a straight and direct attack upon a sitting High Court Judge and the same has number only lowered the dignity of the sitting High Court Judge but also total judicial system of the companyntry.
The Committee made a companyprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to companytempt of Court in the light of the position obtaining in our own companyntry and various foreign companyntries.
The companytempt petition was duly supported by an affidavit as required and solemnly affirmed by the first respondent.
The appellant was accordingly served with the companytempt petition together with all annexures and enclosures including the affidavit of the first respondent filed in support of the companytempt petition.
1 to 4, 6 and 8 are true to his knowledge.
The appellant also raised the issue of maintainability of the companytempt petition since the motion was moved without the companysent in writing of the Advocate General.
In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that the statements, companyments and averments made in paragraph Nos.
The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after companysidering the views expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Thereafter, various TV news channels and editors of newspapers were added as parties to the companytempt proceedings.
These companyments were widely reported and published in various newspapers on 5.10.2003.
The decision was rendered prior to the Act companying into force.
The appellant herein is alleged to have number only criticized the order but also made certain adverse companyments against the Judge who passed the said order.
The appellant was required to be personally present on 7th November, 2003 before the Court.
Hence this appeal.
