The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that fair and accurate media reporting of a judicial order pronounced in open court does not amount to contempt of court merely because the order has not yet been formally signed by the judge.
The Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh and Justice Amarjot Bhatti recently made these observations while dismissing criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the editors and journalists of The Tribune, The Hindustan Times and The Times of India. The proceedings arose from newspaper reports concerning a judgment that had been pronounced in open court but had not yet been formally signed.
The controversy originated from an order passed by the single-judge Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya on April 9 regarding the transfer of a criminal trial involving former Punjab Police officers from Faridkot to Chandigarh. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on that date. On April 10, the newspapers published reports accurately describing the Court’s decision.
Subsequently, Justice Dahiya, while noting that the written order had not yet been signed, observed that the publication of news reports based on the judgment appeared to constitute an attempt to overreach the judicial process and interfere with the administration of justice. Acting on those observations, the single-judge Bench initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Jyoti Malhotra and other editors and reporters associated with the publications.
The contempt reference was subsequently placed before a Division Bench for adjudication. Examining the matter, the Bench noted that the order had already been formally pronounced in open court and that the media reports merely reflected the contents of that judicial pronouncement. The Court found that the reports were factually accurate and did not contain any false, misleading or distorted account of the proceedings.
The Division Bench further observed that the newspapers had correctly reported the order directing the transfer of the criminal trial from Faridkot to Chandigarh. Since the publications faithfully reflected the substance of the judicial proceedings and did not misrepresent the Court’s findings, no element of criminal contempt could be attributed to the journalists or the publications concerned.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that a judgment becomes operative immediately upon its formal pronouncement in open court. The Court emphasised that the effectiveness of a judicial pronouncement does not depend upon the subsequent act of signing the order. Once a judgment is formally pronounced in open court, it acquires legal force and may legitimately be reported by the media.
The High Court further observed that the law protects fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings and that such reporting constitutes an important aspect of the principle of open justice and transparency in the administration of justice. The Bench held that no person can be held guilty of criminal contempt merely for publishing a truthful and accurate report of a judicial order that has already been pronounced in court.
Finding no element of interference with judicial proceedings, obstruction of justice or attempt to undermine the authority of the Court, the Division Bench concluded that the actions of the newspapers, their editors and reporters did not satisfy the ingredients of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court accordingly dismissed the contempt proceedings and closed the matter.
The post Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes contempt proceedings against newspapers for reporting order pronounced in open court before signing appeared first on India Legal.