Public comment on pending proceedings may amount to contempt where it prejudices parties or interferes with justice.

A public speech on a matter pending before the Court can constitute contempt if, in the surrounding circumstances, it is calculated to prejudice parties, deter similar claims, or interfere with the due administration of justice. Direct reference to the pending petition or proof that the judge was actually influenced is not required; the controlling test is the likely effect of the words. The Chief Minister's broadcast was found to present the Government's defence before trial and to disparage the affected traders, making it likely to obstruct justice. The fact that the matter was heard by a judge alone did not remove contempt jurisdiction, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a public speech broadcast by the Chief Minister, commenting on a matter then pending before the Court and supporting the impugned order, amounted to contempt of court by being calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.

Analysis: A publication or speech may amount to contempt if it is calculated to interfere with the course of justice, prejudice parties to pending proceedings, or create an atmosphere likely to deter persons from pursuing similar claims. The absence of direct reference to the pending petition or of proof that the Judge was actually influenced is not decisive. The controlling test is whether the words, in the surrounding circumstances, were likely to obstruct or interfere with justice. The speech here presented the Government's defence before the dispute was tried, characterised the affected traders in a prejudicial manner, and was likely to affect both the petitioners and others with similar claims. The fact that the matter was heard by a Judge without a jury did not take the conduct outside contempt jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The speech amounted to contempt of court, though treated as a technical contempt warranting only disapproval and no substantive punishment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order recording disapproval of the Chief Minister's conduct was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Any public comment on a pending proceeding that is calculated to prejudice parties, deter litigation, or interfere with the due administration of justice constitutes contempt, even if the maker did not intend such interference and even where the case is tried by a judge without a jury.

---