Media Can Report on Court Orders Before Formal Signing
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that media outlets do not commit contempt of court by reporting on judicial orders dictated in open court, even if those orders have yet to be signed by the presiding judge. This decision arose from the case Court on Its Own Motion v. Jyoti Malhotra and Others.
Details of the Ruling
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Jasgurpreet Singh and Justice Amarjot Bhatti, addressed a criminal contempt petition that had been initiated by a single judge against prominent newspapers: The Tribune, Hindustan Times, and The Times of India. The court emphasized that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings does not amount to contempt of court.
The ruling underscored the principle established by the Supreme Court that a judgment becomes an operative pronouncement as soon as it is delivered in open court. The Bench stated, “Considering the law laid by the 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.”
Background of the Contempt Proceedings
On April 10, The Tribune, Hindustan Times, and The Times of India published articles regarding a judgment dictated in open court by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya on April 9. This judgment pertained to the transfer of a case involving former Punjab police officers from Faridkot to Chandigarh. Notably, the order had not been signed at the time of publication.
Justice Dahiya, in an order dated April 11, suggested that this reporting could be perceived as an attempt to bypass the court’s authority and potentially interfere with the administration of justice. Consequently, contempt proceedings were initiated against The Tribune Editor-in-Chief, Jyoti Malhotra, among others.
More Read
Conclusion of the Case
Upon review, the Division Bench concluded on May 6 that Justice Dahiya’s judgment was indeed dictated in open court and that the newspapers had accurately reported the order to transfer the trial. The Bench noted that the contents of the reports were truthful and not misleading.
The court decisively terminated the contempt proceedings, stating, “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.”
For those interested in the full details, the judgment can be accessed [here].
