[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 447 [16] Further, Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd [1974] AC 273 had observed that: “... ‘Contempt of court’ is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes. Contempt of court may thus take many forms”. [17] It can never be said enough that the purpose of the law on contempt is not to protect the dignity of individual judges but to protect the administration of justice. According to John Donaldson MR in Attorney-General v. Newspaper PLC [1998] Ch 333, the law of contempt is based on the broadest principle that the courts cannot permit any interference with the due administration of justice. Its application is universal. [18] Echoing this stance, this court in Zainur Zakaria v. PP [2001] 1 MLRA 341 already emphasised that: “the jurisdiction of the courts does not exist to protect the dignity of individual judges personally. It serves to protect the Judiciary as the third arm of government rather than individual judges.” [19] Since its purpose is to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, it is only logical that criticisms of judges as individuals, rather than as judges, should not be the subject of contempt. The public confidence had, in no uncertain term ruled that criticisms of the Chief Justice which are not directed at him in his official capacity as a judge, are not contempt as explained in In the Matter of a Special Reference from the Bahama Islands [1893] AC 138. In such cases, the judge can of course sue for defamation or libel to remedy any damage to his personal reputation. Liability Of Media Publication [20] Legal liabilities on publishers of contemptuous and offensive publication need a particular mention. The law on print publication which is regarded as the traditional media before the advent of the modern media and the internet was invented, is somewhat settled. [21] In Borrie & Lowe: The Law of Contempt, 3rd edn, (London: Butterworths, 1996) at p 85, the learned authors opined that a matter can be regarded as “published” when it is made available to the general public or at any rate a section of the public which is likely to comprise those having a connection with the case. The extent of a publication’s circulation may be vital. The bigger the media outlet’s reach, the less likely that it can successfully argue that its publication is not likely to come to the notice of a witness, etc. In R v. Odham’s Press Ltd ex p AG [1957] 1 QB 73 at 78, Lord Goddard, in relation to a case of contempt involving the People newspaper said: “...considering the proprietors claim a circulation of over four million copies