The Court observed that any criticism of the judiciary or judges that would hinder the administration of justice or put it in jeopardy must be avoided. This attempt results in the contempt of court procedures. All criticisms of the judiciary must be perfectly rational, sober, and stem from the highest motives without being tainted by any party, spirit or techniques, as required by national interest. Without a shadow of a doubt, the press has access to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and criticising a decision harshly but honestly is a legitimate right, not a crime. Contempt is not implied by an honest and reasonable criticism of a judge’s public decision or public act related to the administration of justice. No one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility, hence it is necessary to encourage such fair and reasonable criticism. However, the criticism must not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair.