The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted

The Supreme Court has further observed:

In a recent judgment of this Court dated 14.11.1994, namely, Chandra Sashi v. Anil Kumar Verma a Bench comprising one of us, Kuldip Singh, J. as a member, learned Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench had held that:

The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned....

It was further observed:

...Law of contempt is only one of the many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but broad stream of administration of justice. Therefore, due course of justice used in Section 2(c) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and are not limited to any particular judicial proceeding. Much more wider when this Court exercises suo motu power under Article 129 of the Constitution.... If the act complained of substantially interferes with or tends to interfere with the broad stream of administration of justice, it would be punishable under the Act. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the Court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice of tends to obstruct the course of justice of interfere with due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of constitutes contempt of court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act....