Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 446 [2021] 2 MLRA impugned comments which were calculated to implicate the Judiciary as a whole, and which also include the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, this court has no hesitation in holding that it is the correct and appropriate forum to hear the AG’s application. This court in fact is duty-bound to deal with such scurrilous attack in order to uphold the image, integrity and public confidence in the Judiciary. [13] The next procedural non-compliance raised was in relation to the naming of the 2nd respondent. In this Application the AG named the 2nd respondent as “Ketua Editor, Malaysiakini” which was argued as a failure to name the alleged contemnor in his name, as there is no such position in Malaysiakini. Instead, what it has is “Editor-in-Chief ”, a position held by one Steven Gan. In our view, this non-compliance was a curable technicality. This court took the same position in Malayan Banking Berhad v. Chairman Sarawak Housing Developers’ Association [2014] 4 MLRA 493. We agree with that decision that so long as the party and the capacity in which he is being sued is identifiable, such error does not cause injustice, hence not fatal to the case. Having dismissed encl 22, we then proceeded to hear the application in encl 19. The Applicable Laws On Contempt Of Court [14] Before deliberating on encl 19, this would be a suitable juncture to briefly state the applicable law on the subject of contempt. Power to punish for contempt flows from ‘raison d’etre’ for a court of law to uphold the administration of justice. All courts are empowered to punish for contempt committed when the courts are in session. The superior courts are empowered to punish any contempt of itself as provided in art 126 of the Federal Constitution read with s 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 126 of the Federal Constitution provides specifically for the power to punish for contempt when it states: “Power to punish for contempt 126. The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of itself.” [15] As Malaysia does not have any specific legislation to regulate on contempt of court, regard has to be made to the English common law principle by virtue of s 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956. It was elucidated in R v. Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, the term ‘contempt of court’ has always been referred to as: “... Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of court. That is one case of contempt. Further, any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts is a contempt of court. The former class belongs to the category which Lord Hardwicke LC characterised as scandalising a court or a judge.” [Emphasis Added]