Judy Garland, an aging Hollywood prodigy, brought suit against her employers, the Columbia Broadcasting System, last fall and unwittingly touched off a serious debate on freedom of the press.

Miss Garland, suing for more than one million dollars in a combined libel and breach-of-contract action, introduced as evidence a column from the New York Herald Tribune, which reported an anonymous CBS official as saying that Judy was "known for a highly developed inferiority complex" and "did not want to work because something is bothering her."

Miss Garland took umbrage at these allegations that she was of an anti-social and possibly neurotic disposition and asked the Tribune's columnist, Marie Torre, to identify her source. Miss Torre refused in a pre-trial examination and later when called upon to do so by Federal Judge Sylvester J. Ryan, who thereupon cited her for contempt of court and sentenced her to ten days in jail. On appeal, the case went to the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently upheld Judge Ryan's decision. Indications are that the Supreme Court will now be asked to rule on the questions raised in the two decisions.

Aside from a rather specious plea from Miss Torre that her evidence was of no importance to Miss Garland's suit, two points were raised in the appeal. The columnist cited what has long been considered a traditional newspaper privilege--the anonymity of confidential sources, as well as the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment.

Judge Potter Stewart, recently appointed to the Supreme Court, agreed in his opinion that some "impairment of this First Amendment freedom" was involved in the citation. He declined, however, to honor the plea of journalistic privilege, on the grounds that it was not incorporated in the common law, and could only be assured by legislation.

The blow to newsgatherers who rely so often on information from undisclosed and undisclosable sources was a severe one. If a source can no longer rely on his anonymity--and there are contempt citations stiffer than ten days in jail--he is likely to refuse to talk. Unidentified sources are often vital to the coverage of governmental affairs. In an era of bureaucratic hush-hush the anonymous tipster has become a must for responsible reporters. To close his mouth is, in many cases, to deny the public valuable and necessary information.

Judge Stewart determined, solely on the merits of the case, that Miss Torre's refusal was harmful to Miss Garland in her pursuit of justice. Agreeing that freedom of the press was basic in a democracy, Judge Stewart added, "But basic, too, are courts of justice, armed with the power to discover truth." Few would deny his logic, and he was quick to qualify it: "It is to be noted that we are not dealing here with the use of judicial process to force a wholesale disclosure of a newspaper's confidential sources of news... The question asked of the appellant (Miss Torre) went to the heart of the plaintiff's (Miss Garland) claim. We hold that the Constitution conferred no right to refuse an answer."

All of which may be well and good and true in the particular case involved. Its truth, though, is not self-evident in a general application. With-out any statutory protection of confidential sources, any newspaperman may, under the logic of the opinion, be forced to reveal evidence which is not "of doubtful relevance or materiality" to a case. To a newspaper, at least, such logic is arguable.