{"id":142448,"date":"1953-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953"},"modified":"2017-08-12T15:50:49","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T10:20:49","slug":"sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","title":{"rendered":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 186, \t\t 1954 SCR 454<\/div>\n
Author: V Bose<\/div>\n
Bench: Bose, Vivian<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSUKHDEV SINGH SODHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGESOF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/11\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  186\t\t  1954 SCR  454\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1963 SC 692\t (16)\n R\t    1971 SC1132\t (83)\n R\t    1972 SC 858\t (5)\n RF\t    1991 SC2176\t (1-1 13,21,25)\n R\t    1992 SC 904\t (15,18,19,22,37,40)\n\n\nACT:\n    Contempt of court-Contempt of Judges of High  Court-Power\n of  Supreme  Court to transfer proceedings to\tanother\t High\n Court\t-  Criminal  Procedure Code,  1898,  ss.  1(2),\t 527-\n Constitution  of  India, art. 215-Contempt  of\t Courts\t Act,\n 1952, s. 3.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The  Supreme Court has no power under section 527  of\tthe\nCriminal Procedure Code or under any other provision of\t law\nto transfer from a High Court,. proceedings which that\tHigh\nCourt has initiated for contempt of itself, to another\tHigh\nCourt.\n  Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply\nto  such  a case as the power of a High Court  to  institute\nproceedings  for  contempt  of\titself\tand  to\t punish\t the\ncontemner  where necessary, is a special jurisdiction  which\nis inherent in all courts of record and section 1 (2) of the\nCriminal Procedure Code excludes such special  jurisdictions\n'from its scope.\nIt-is  desirable, on general principles of justice, that  a\njudge who has been personally attacked should not as far  as\npossible  bear\ta  contempt matter which,  to  that  extent,\nconcerns him personally.\n    In\t  re   Abdool\tand   Mahtab(8\t W.R.\tCr.    32),\nSurendranath  Banerjea\tv. Chief justice and Judges  of\t the\nHigh  Court of Bengal (10 I.A. 171), Abdul  Hasan     Jauhar\n(I.L.R.\t 48  All.711),\tIn  the\t matter\t of  Sashi   Bhushan\nSarbadhicary  (I.L.R.  29 All. 95), Crown  v.  Sayyad  Habib\n(I.L.R.\t 6 Lah. 528 F.B1.), In re Abdul Hasan Jauhar  (I.L.R\n48.All 711), In the matter of Muslim Outlook, Lahore  (A.I.R\n1927 Lah. 610), In re Murli Manohar Prasad (I.L.R 8 Pat. 323\n) Harikrishen Lal v. The Crown (I.L.R. 18 Lah. 69) Ambard v.\nAttorney-Geneneral for Trinidad & Tobago ([1936] A.C.  322),\nWilliam Raini v. The Justices of Sierre Leone (8 Moo.\tP.C.\n47),  In  the matter of K. L. Gauba (I.L.R.  23\t Lah.  411),\nParashuram  Detaram  v.\t Emperor (A.I.R. 1945  P.  C.  134),\nEmperor v.\n455\n  B.\t G.  Horniman (A.I.R. 1945 All. 1), In\tre  Pollard\n(L.  R. P.     C.  106),  In re Vallabhdas (I.L.R.  27\tBom.\n394)  and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh v. King Emperor (I.L.R.  4\nRang- 257) referred to,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION  : Petition .(No.  304  of  1953)
\nunder section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
\n  H. J. Umrigar for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
  M. C. Setalvad, attorney-General for India (G.  N.
\nloshi, with him) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
   1953.   November  25.   The Judgment\t of  the  Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\n   BOSE\t J.-This  is  an unusual application  asking  for  a
\ntransfer of certain contempt proceedings from the Pepsu High
\nCourt  to  any\tother High Court and,  in  the\talternative,
\naskinG\tthat at least the matter should not be heard by\t two\n<\/p>\n
-of  the judges of that High Court who -are named.  This  at
\nonce raises a question about our jurisdiction to order\tsuch
\na transfer.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tlearned counsel for the applicant relied on  section
\n527 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  Briefly his  reasoning.
\nwas this.  Section 527 authorises the transfer of any “case”
\nfrom one High Court to another whenever it is made to appear
\nto the Supreme Court that such transfer is expedient for the
\nends  of  justice.   The word “‘case”  is  not\tdefined\t but
\n“offence”  is ,defined in section 4 (o) to mean “any act  or
\nomission  made punishable by any law for the time  being  in\n<\/p>\n
-force.”  Contempt  is\tpunishable under  the  Contempt\t .of
\nCourts Act, 1952, therefore it is an offence punish-able  by
\na  law which is in force ; consequently, it is\tan  offence.
\nBeing an offence it is triable under the Criminal  Procedure
\nCode because section 5 makes the Code applicable not only to
\nthe trial of offences under the.  Indian Penal Code but also
\nto  the trial of offences against “other laws.” As it  is  a
\nmatter triable under the Criminal Procedure Code it must  be
\na  “case” within the meaning of section 527 and\t accordingly
\nthe section can be invoked here.\n<\/p>\n
   We are unable to agree.  In our opinion, the power ,of  a
\nHigh Court to institute proceedings for contempt
\n456<\/span>
\nand  punish where necessary is a special jurisdiction  which
\nis,inherent in all courts of record section 1(2) of the Code
\nexpressly  excludes  special jurisdictions from\t its  scope.
\nThe section runs-\n<\/p>\n
   “In\tthe  absence  of  any  specific\t provision  to\t the
\ncontrary,   nothing  herein  contained\tshall\taffect\t any
\nspecial……  law now in force or any special\tjurisdiction
\nor  power conferred by I any other law for the time  be’  in
\nforce.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t term “special jurisdiction’ is not defined  in\t the
\nCriminal  Procedure  Code but the words\t “special  law”\t are
\ndefined\t in section 41 of the Indian Penal Code to  mean  “a
\nlaw  applicable to a particular subject.” In the absence  of
\nany  specific definition in the Criminal Procedure  Code  we
\nthink that that brings out the ordinary and natural  meaning
\nof  the words “special jurisdiction” and covers the  present
\ncase.  Contempt is a special subject and the jurisdiction is
\nconferred  ‘by a special set of laws peculiar to  courts  of
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
   This has long been the view in India.  In 1867 Peacok  C.
\nJ. laid down the rule quite broadly in these words in In  re
\nAbdool and Mahtab (1):\n<\/p>\n
  “there can be no doubt that every court of record has\t the
\npower of summarily punishing for contempt.”
\n   It  is true the same learned Judge sitting in  the  Privy
\nCouncil in 1883 traced the origin of the power in the case I
\nof the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts to the common
\nlaw  of England [see Surendranath Banerjea v. Chief  justice
\nand  Judges  of\t the High Court of  Bengal(2)],\t but  it  is
\nevident from other decisions of the judicial Committee\tthat
\nthe  jurisdiction is broader based than that.\tBut  however
\nthat may be, Sir Barnes Peacock made it clear that the words
\n“any other law” in section 5 of the Criminal Procedure\tCode
\ndo not cover contempt of a kind punishable summarily by\t the
\nthree Chartered High Court.\n<\/p>\n
   Now\tit  is\trelevant to note  in  this  connection\tthat
\nwhatever the origin of the jurisdiction may be in the
\n(1) (1867) 8 W.R. Cr. 32 at 33.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1883) 10 I.A. 171 at 179.\n<\/p>\n
457<\/span><\/p>\n
case  of  those\t three courts, the  Charter  of\t 1774  which
\nestablished the Supreme Court of Bengal, while providing  in
\nclause\t4 that its Judges should have the same\tjurisdiction
\nas  the\t Court of, King’s Bench in England,  also  expressly
\nstated\tin clause 21 that the court is empowered  to  punish
\nfor  contempt.\t When  the  Supreme  Court  of\tBengal\t was
\nabolished the High Courts Act of 1861 continued those powers
\nto the Chartered High Courts by sections 9 and 11 and clause
\n2  of the Letters Patent of the year 1865 continued them  as
\ncourts\tof record.  Despite this, in 1883 the Privy  Council
\ndid  not trace this particular jurisdiction of the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court to clause 15 of its Charter but to the common law
\nof England.  But what is the common law ? It is simply this:
\nthat  the jurisdiction to punish for contempt  is  something
\ninherent in every court of record.  Sulaiman J. collected  a
\nnumber\tof  English authorities at pages 728 to 730  of\t his
\njudgment in In re Abdul Hasan Jauhar (I and concluded thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “These leading cases unmistakably show that the power of
\nthe  High  Court  in England to deal with  the\tcontempt  of
\ninferior  courts  is  based not so much\t on  its  historical
\nfoundation as on the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.”
\n   Apparently,\tbecause\t of this the Privy Council  held  in
\n1853  that  the Recorder’s Court at Sierre  Leone  also\t had
\njurisdiction to punish for contempt, not because that  court
\nhad  inherited\tthe jurisdiction of the English\t courts\t but
\nbecause it was a court of record.  Their Lordships’ language
\nwas this:\n<\/p>\n
    “In\t this country every court of record is the sole\t and
\nexclusive   judge   of\twhat  amounts  to  a   contempt\t  of
\ncourt………\tand unless there exists a difference in\t the
\nconstitution  of  the Recorder’s Court at Sierre  Leone\t the
\nsame  power  must  be  conceded\t to  be\t inherent  in\tthat
\ncourt……  we are of opinion that it is a court of  record
\nand  that  the law must be considered the same there  as  in
\nthis country.”\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (1926) I.L.R. 48 All. 711 .\n<\/p>\n
458<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t 1884 edition of Belchamber’s Practice of the  Civil
\nCourts also says at ‘page 241 that-\n<\/p>\n
    “Every superior court of record, whether in ‘the  United
\nKingdom, or in the colonial’ possessions or dependencies  of
\nthe  Crown has inherent’ power to punish contempts,  without
\nits\t precincts,\tas     well\tas     in      facie
\ncuriae………………….\n<\/p>\n
     So also 7 Halsbury’s Laws of England (Hailsham edition)
\npage 2-\n<\/p>\n
   “The\t superior  courts have an inherent  jurisdiction  to
\npunish criminal contempt etc…………..”\n<\/p>\n
    “But  reverting to the developments in India.  The\tHigh
\nCourt of  Allahabad  was  established  in  1866\t under\t the
\nHigh  Courts  Act  of 1861 and was constituted\ta  court  of
\nrecord.\t  In 1906 the Privy Council remarked at page 108  of
\nits judgment in In the matter of Sashi Bhushan\tSarbadhicary
\n(1) that-\n<\/p>\n
  “There is also no doubt that the publication of this libel
\nconstituted a contempt of court which might have been  dealt
\nwith  by  the  High Court in a summary\tmanner\tby  fine  or
\nimprisonment or both.”\n<\/p>\n
    After  this\t came  the Government of  India\t Act,  1915.
\nSection\t 106 continued to all High Courts then in  existence
\nthe  same jurisdiction, powers and authority as they had  at
\nthe commencement of that Act, and section 113 empowered\t the
\nestablishment  of  new High Courts by  Letters\tPatent\twith
\nauthority to vest in them the same jurisdiction, powers\t and
\nauthority “as are vested in or may be conferred on any\tHigh
\nCourt existing at the commencement of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
    The Lahore High Court was established by Letters  Patent
\nin 1919 and was duly constituted a court of record.  In\t the
\nyear 1925 a Special Bench of that court punished a  contempt
\nof itself in Crown v. Sayyad Habib(2).\n<\/p>\n
   After  this\tthe  question  was  again  agitated  in\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court in 1926 but this time in respect of  a
\ncontempt of a subordinate court.  A Full Bench was  convened
\nand the learned Judges reaffirmed their
\n(1) (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 95.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 1925 I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528 (F.B).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    459<\/span><\/p>\n
powers:\t  In re Abdul Hasan Jauhar (1).\t Two of\t the  Judges
\nbased  broadly\ton the inherent jurisdiction of a  court  of
\nrecord.\t  Sulaiman J, said at page 727 that “it is  not\t the
\nterritorial  limits of the jurisdiction of a Supreme  Court”
\n[of Bengal] “but the very nature of its constitution that is
\nof  importance.” Boys J. however preferred to ground on\t the
\nfact  that that court “had conferred on it, by\tthe  statute
\nand the Letters Patent creating it, similar powers to those
\nconferred  on the High Court of Calcutta,” and at  page\t 733
\nwent on to say that that applied “to every other High  Court
\nin this country.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  presence of all this history  the\tContempt  of
\nCourts\tAct, 1926, was passed.\tThe heading states that\t the
\nAct is “to define and limit the powers of certain courts  in
\nPunishing contempts of courts.” The preamble states-
\n   “Whereas  doubts have arisen as to the powers of  a\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Judicature  to punish  contempts  of\t courts\t and
\nwhereas\t it  is\t expedient to resolve these  doubts  and  to
\ndefine\tand limit the powers exercisable by High Courts\t and
\nChief Courts in punishing contempts of court : It is  hereby
\nenacted as follows Section 2 says :-\n<\/p>\n
   “Subject  to the provisions of sub-section (3), the\tHigh
\nCourts\tof  judicature established by Letters  Patent  shall
\nhave   and  exercise  the  same\t jurisdiction,\tpowers\t and
\nauthority   in\taccordance  with  the  same  procedure\t and
\npractice,  in respect of contempts of courts subordinate  to
\nthem  as they have and exercise in respect of  contempts  of
\nthemselves.”\n<\/p>\n
    This recognises an existing jurisdiction in all  Letters
\nPatent\tHigh Courts to punish for contempts  of\t themselves,
\nand the only limitation placed on those powers is the amount
\nof punishment which they could thereafter inflict.  It is to
\nbe  noted  that\t the Act draws no  distinction\tbetween\t one
\nLetters’  Patent  High.\t Court and another  though  it\tdoes
\ndistinguish  between  Letters Patent High Courts  and  Chief
\nCourts;- also, as the
\n(1)  (1926) I.L.R. 48 All. 711.\n<\/p>\n
460<\/span><\/p>\n
    Act is intended to remove doubts about the, High  Coures
\npowers\tit  is evident that it would  have  conferred  those
\npowers had there been any doubt about the High Court’s power
\nto commit for contempts of themselves.\tThe only doubt\twith
\nwhich the Act deals is the doubt whether a High Court  could
\npunish\tfor a contempt of a court subordinate to  it.\tThat
\ndoubt  the  Act\t removed.  It also  limited  the  amount  of
\npunishment which a  High Court could inflict.
\n    Now\t this  recognises an existing power in\tall  Letters
\nPatent- High Courts to punish and as the Letters Patent High
\nCourts\tother than the Chartered High Courts could not\thave
\nderived\t this power from the common law, it is evident\tthat
\nthe power must have been inherent in themselves because they
\nwere courts of record.\n<\/p>\n
    In\t1927  another Full Bench of the\t Lahore\t High  Court
\nconsisting  of five judges re-examined the position: In\t the
\nmatter\tof  Muslim Outlook, Lahore(‘ They  reaffirmed  their
\nearlier\t decision in The Crown v. Sayyad Habib (2) and\theld
\nthat  this jurisdiction is inherent in every High Court\t and
\nnot merely in the three Chartered High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t 1928 a Full Bench of the Patna High Court  examined
\nthe  matter  [In  re  Murli  Manohar  Prasad(3)]  and\tthen
\ncommitted  for contempt.  In 1936 another Special  Bench  of
\nthe  Lahore  High  Court [Harkishen  Lai  v.  The  Crown(4)]
\nfollowed the earlier Lahore decisions.
\n   The\tPrivy  Council\tdecided\t a  case  of  contempt\tfrom
\nTrinidad in 1936 [Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad  &
\nTobago(5)] and held that it was a quasicriminal offence\t and
\nin the course of their judgement they referred to an earlier
\ndecision  of  the  Be from Sierre Leone\t to  which  we\thave
\nalready\t referred [William Rainy v. The Justices  of  Sierre
\nLeone(6)].   In\t the Trinidad case their Lordships  did\t not
\naccept the extreme proposition that every court of record is
\nthe
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 610.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (1925) I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 323.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  (1937) I.L.R. 18 Lab. 69.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  [1936] A.C. 322.\n<\/p>\n
(6)   8 Moo.  P.C. 47.\n<\/p>\n
461<\/span><\/p>\n
sole  and  exclusive  judge of what  amounts,to\t a  contempt
\nbecause\t of their decision in Surendranath Banerjea  v.\t the
\nChief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Bengal(1), but
\nthey did not doubt the soundness of the decision otherwise.
\n    In 1942 the Lahore High Court examined the position in a
\nFull  Bench  for  the  third  time  and\t reached  the\tsame
\nconclusion: In the matter of K. L. Gauba(2).  This time they
\npointed\t out that the Sind, Rangoon and Nagpur\tHigh  Courts
\nhad  also  punished  summarily\tfor  contempts.\t  They\talso
\nreferred  to two American decisions where, though the  power
\nwas  said to have been derived from the common law,  it\t was
\nsaid that.\n<\/p>\n
     “The  power to fine and imprison for contempt from\t the
\nearliest  history  of jurisprudence has been regarded  as  a
\nnecessary incident and attribute of a court without which it
\ncould no more exist than without a judge…………
\n    Finally, in Parashuram Detaram v. Emperor(3 ) the  Privy
\nCouncil\t said  that  “this summary power  of  punishing\t for
\ncontempt……….  is\ta  power  which\t a  court  must\t  of
\nnecessity possess.”\n<\/p>\n
   We  have  omitted  references to the\t Bombay\t and  Madras
\ndecisions after 1883 because the judicial Committee  settled
\nthe powers of the three Chartered High Courts.\tWhat we\t are
\nat  pains  to show is that, apart from\tthe  Chartered\tHigh
\nCourts,\t practically  every other High Court  in  India\t has
\nexercised the jurisdiction and where its authority has\tbeen
\nchallenged each has held that it is a jurisdiction  inherent
\nin  a  court  of record from the very nature  of  the  court
\nitself.\t  This\tis important when we come  to  construe\t the
\nlater  legislation  because by this time it  Was  judicially
\naccepted  throughout  India  that  the\tjurisdiction  was  a
\nspecial\t one inherent in the very nature of the court.\t The
\nonly  discordant note that we know of was struck in  Emperor
\nv. B. G. Horniman(4) where a Division Bench of the Allahabad
\n(1)  (1883) 10 I.A. 171.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (1942) I.L.R. 23 Lah. 411.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 134 at 136.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1945 All at 4.\n<\/p>\n
462<\/span><\/p>\n
    High  Court held that after the Act of 1926 the  offence
\nof contempt was punishable under an Indian Penal statute and
\nso  the\t Code of Criminal Procedure applied because  of\t the
\nwords “any other law” in section 5. In our opinion, this  is
\nwrong\tbecause\t the  Act  of  1926  does  not\tconfer\t any
\njurisdiction  and  does not create the offence.\t  It  merely
\nlimits\tthe amount of the punishment which can be given\t and
\nremoves\t a certain doubt.  Accordingly, the jurisdiction  to
\ninitiate the proceedings and take seisin of the matter is as
\nbefore.\n<\/p>\n
    The Pepsu High Court was established in 1948 and section
\n33  of\tthe Ordinance which established it recites  that  it
\nshall be a court of record and that it shall have ‘power  to
\npunish for contempt.  It will be remembered that the Charter
\nof  1774 which established a Supreme Court for\tBengal\tsaid
\nthe  same thing of that court and yet the Privy Council\t did
\nnot  trace  its powers about contempt from the\tCharter\t but
\nfrom the common law.  In the same way, the law by this\ttime
\nwas  so well settled in matters of contempt that  the  words
\n“court\tof  record” and “power to punish for  contempt”\t had
\nacquired a special meaning.  Consequently, it is  immaterial
\nwhether\t in  1948  the power of the  Pepsu  High  Court\t was
\nderived from section 33 or was inherent in the nature of the
\ncourt because whichever it is the jurisdiction is a  special
\none,  and  had the legislature desired to take it  away\t and
\nconfer\tanother\t kind  of jurisdiction it  would  have\tbeen
\nnecessary  to  use express words in, view of  the  case\t law
\nwhich by then had become well established.
\nIn  1950  came\tthe Constitution of India  and\tarticle\t 215
\nstates that-\n<\/p>\n
   “Every  High Court shall be a court of record  and  shall
\nhave  all the powers of such a court including the power  to
\npunish for contempt of itself.”\n<\/p>\n
   Here\t again, whether this is a fresh, conferral of  power
\nor a continuation of existing powers hardly matters  because
\nwhichever way it is viewed the jurisdiction is a special one
\nand  so\t is outside the purview of  the\t Criminal  Procedure
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
463<\/span><\/p>\n
   The\tContempt  of Courts Act, 1926, was repealed  by\t Act
\nXXXII  of  1952.   Section 3 of the new Act  is\t similar  to
\nsection\t 2  of\tthe  old and,  far  from  conferring  a\t new
\njurisdiction, assumes, as did the old Act, the existence  of
\na  right  to  punish for contempt in every  High  Court\t and
\nfurther\t assumes  the existence of a  special  practice\t and
\nprocedure, for it says that every High Court shall  exercise
\nthe  same jurisdiction, powers and authority “in  accordance
\nwith  the same procedure and practice.” These words are\t new
\nand  would be inappropriate if the Criminal  Procedure\tCode
\napplied.  In  any case, so far as contempt of a\t High  Court
\nitself\tis concerned, as distinct from one of a\t subordinate
\ncourt,\tthe  Constitution vests these rights in\t every\tHigh
\nCourt,\tso  no\tAct of a legislature could  take  away\tthat
\njurisdiction  and  confer  it afresh by virtue\tof  its\t own
\nauthority.   It is true section 5 expands the ambit  of\t the
\nauthority  beyond  what\t was  till  then  considered  to  be
\npossible  but  it does not confer a  new  jurisdiction.\t  It
\nmerely\twidens\tthe scope of an existing jurisdiction  of  a
\nvery special kind.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t reflection it will be apparent that the Code  could
\nnot be called in aid in such cases, for if the Code  applies
\nit  must apply in its entirety and in that event  how  could
\nsuch  proceedings be instituted ? The maximum punishment  is
\nnow limited to six month’s simple imprisonment or a fine  of
\nRs. 2,000 or both because of the 1952 Act.  Therefore, under
\nthe second schedule to the Code contempt would be triable by
\na Magistrate and not by a High Court and the procedure would
\nhave  to be a summons procedure.  That would take  away\t the
\nright of a High Court to deal with the matter summarily\t and
\npunish,\t a right which was well established by the case\t law
\nup to 1945 and which no subsequent legislation has attempted
\nto  remove.  So also section 556 could not apply, nor  would
\nthe  rule  which prohibits a judge from\t importing  his\t own
\nknowledge  of  the facts into the case.\t We  hold  therefore
\nthat  the  Code\t of Criminal Procedure\tdoes  not  apply  in
\nmatters\t of  contempt triable by the High Court.   The\tHigh
\nCourt can deal with it summarily and adopt its own
\n464<\/span>
\nprocedure.   All that is necessary is that the procedure  is
\nfair  and  that the contemner is made aware  of\t the  charge
\nagainst\t him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity  to
\ndefend\thimself.   This\t rule was laid\tdown  by  the  Privy
\nCouncil in In re Pollard(1) and was followed in India and in
\nBurma in In re Vallabhdas(2) and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh  v.
\nKing Emperor(3) In our view that is still the law.
\n   If  the Code of Criminal Procedure does not\tapply,\tthen
\nthere  is  no  other  power  which  we\tcan  exercise.\t The
\nConstitution gives every High Court the right and the  power
\nto  punish  a  contempt of itself.  If we were\tto  order  a
\ntransfer to another court in this case we would be depriving
\nthe Pepsu High Court of the right which is so vested, in it.
\nWe have no more power to do that than has a legislature.  As
\nfor transfer from one judge to another, there again there is
\nno original jurisdiction which we can exercise.\t It is not a
\nfundamental  right and so article 32 has no application\t and
\nthere  is no other law to which recourse can be\t had.\tThis
\npetition is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      We wish however to add that though we have no power to
\norder  a  transfer in an original petition of this  kind  we
\nconsider it desirable on general principles of justice\tthat
\na  judge who has been personally attacked should not as\t far
\nas  possible hear a contempt matter which, to  that  extent,
\nconcerns  him personal1y It is otherwise when the attack  is
\nnot directed against him personally.  We do not lay down any
\ngeneral\t rule  because\tthere may be  cases  where  that  is
\nimpossible,  as for example in a court where there  is\tonly
\none  judge  or two and both are attacked.  Other  cases\t may
\nalso  arise where it is more convenient and proper  for\t the
\njudge  to deal with the matter himself, as for example in  a
\ncontempt  in facie curioe.  All we say is that this must  be
\nleft to the good sense of the judges themselves who, we\t are
\nconfident, will
\n(1)  L.R. 2 P.C. 106 at 120.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 394 at 399.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  I.L.R. 4 Rang. 257 at 259-261.\n<\/p>\n
465<\/span><\/p>\n
comport,  themselves  with that\t dispassionate\tdignity\t and
\ndecorum which befits their high office and will bear in mind
\nthe oft quoted maxim that justice must not only be done\t but
\nmust  be  seen\tto  be\tdone  by  all  concerned  and\tmost
\nparticularly  by  an accused person’ who should,  always  be
\ngiven,\tas  far as that is humanly possible,, A\t feeling  of
\nconfidence  that he will receive a fair, just and  impartial
\ntrial by judges who have no personal interest or concern  in
\nhis case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the petitioner : Ratnaparkhi Anant Govind.
\nAgent for the respondent       G. H. Rajadhyakska.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 186, 1954 SCR 454 Author: V Bose Bench: Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGESOF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/11\/1953 BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\"},\"wordCount\":3525,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\",\"name\":\"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953","datePublished":"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953"},"wordCount":3525,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953","name":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The ... on 25 November, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T10:20:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-sodhi-vs-the-chief-justice-and-judgesof-the-on-25-november-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice And Judgesof The … on 25 November, 1953"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}