ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 or investigation agency does have right to bring it to notice of the Tribunal. Besides, there has been no explicit clog, either the Act of 1973 or the ROP, in bringing any such contemptible act or conduct by any individual, to the notice of the Tribunal. 31. Fourth, the applicant, as we perceive, has come forward with the application, as a conscious citizen, being felt wounded by the comments made in the alleged articles which he considers gravely deprecating for the judiciary and administration of justice. Since an individual does have right to freedom of expression and speech including the right to post judgment criticism, another individual also does have right to come forward with his protest against any ‘expression’ of the former to get it remedied, to resist imputation of any kind directing the administration of justice. 32. At para 16 of the decision in the case of S. Mulgaokar vs. Unknown, 1978 AIR 727 it has been observed too that“But, when there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which must damage confidence in our judicial system and demoralize Judges of the highest court by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed” 33. The applicant thus does have locus standi in bringing the instant application as he seems to have felt ‘perturbed’ with the malicious attacks that he considered disparaging in the mind of the public in respect of confidence upon the judicial system of the Tribunal. Therefore, merely treating the applicant a third party the application intending to bring notice of the Tribunal about the alleged articles containing criticism on subjudice matter and post judgment criticism cannot be thrown on air, accepting argument agitated by the learned defence counsel. 34. The alleged ‘articles’ circulated in personal blog have been brought to notice of the Tribunal by the applicant. The application has thus acted as the source of ‘coming into Tribunal’s notice’ about the impugned articles. And on having notice of the same, the Tribunal proceeded examining the contents of the articles pursuant to which the contempt 10