Newspaper reports alone cannot found contempt proceedings without independent proof of the alleged contemptuous statement.

A newspaper report, being hearsay, cannot by itself establish the factual basis for contempt action; independent admissible evidence is required to prove both the alleged statement and its contemptuous reference to pending proceedings. As no reliable proof beyond the press item was produced, the Supreme Court found no sufficient ground to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings and rejected the request for contempt notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a contempt proceeding could be initiated on the basis of a newspaper report without independent proof of the alleged statement, and whether the alleged statement justified issuance of suo motu contempt notice.

Analysis: The alleged contempt was founded only on a press report, and no evidence independent of the newspaper item was produced to prove that the statement was made or that it referred to pending proceedings in a manner amounting to contempt. A newspaper report is hearsay and cannot, by itself, establish the factual basis necessary for contempt action. In the absence of reliable proof and in view of the circumstances noted by the Court, there was no sufficient ground to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The request to initiate contempt proceedings was rejected and no contempt notice was issued.

Ratio Decidendi: A newspaper report, being hearsay, cannot alone be treated as proof of an alleged contemptuous statement; independent admissible evidence is required before contempt proceedings can be initiated.

---