Chandigarh, June 4: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that media reporting of a judicial order dictated in open court does not amount to contempt of court merely because the order has not yet been formally signed by the judge.
According to a report by Bar & Bench, a Division Bench comprising Justices Jasgurpreet Singh and Amarjot Bhatti passed the ruling while dismissing criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the editors and reporters of The Tribune, Hindustan Times and The Times of India.
The Bench observed that a person cannot be held guilty of contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted that once a judgment is formally pronounced in open court, it becomes operative and can be reported upon.
“Considering the law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments to the effect that once there is a formal ‘pronouncement’ in open Court, it becomes a judgment in operation, we are therefore of the considered view that the action on the part of the aforesaid newspapers/Editors-in-Chief/Editors/Reporters cannot be termed as criminal contempt,” the Division Bench held.
As reported by Bar & Bench, the controversy arose after The Tribune, Hindustan Times and The Times of India published reports on April 10 regarding a judgment dictated in open court by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya a day earlier. The judgment concerned the transfer of a criminal case involving former Punjab Police officers from Faridkot to Chandigarh.
Since the order had not been signed at the time of publication, Justice Dahiya, in an order dated April 11, observed that the reports appeared to be an attempt to overreach the court and interfere with the administration of justice. He subsequently initiated contempt proceedings against The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Jyoti Malhotra and others.
However, while examining the contempt reference, the Division Bench found that the order had indeed been dictated in open court and that the newspapers had accurately reported the decision regarding transfer of the trial.
The Bench further noted that the contents of the newspaper reports were neither misleading nor incorrect.
“The contents of the aforesaid newspaper publications were not false and rather they were correct,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the contempt proceedings, holding that no further orders were required in the matter.
“In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present Criminal Contempt Petition and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed,” the Bench said.
