The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that media reporting of an order dictated in open court does not constitute contempt of court merely because the order has not yet been signed by the judge [Court on Its Own Motion v Jyoti Malhotra and Others].

A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh and Justice Amarjot Bhatti passed the ruling while closing a criminal contempt petition initiated by a single judge against the Tribune, the Hindustan Times and the Times of India.

The Court said a person cannot be held guilty of contempt of court for publishing a report about a judicial proceeding in a fair and accurate manner. It noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear that as soon as a judgment is delivered, it becomes operative pronouncement of the court. 

“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 Bench ruled.

The Tribune, the Hindustan Times and the Times of India on April 10 had published reports about a judgement dictated in open court by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya on April 9. It related to transfer of a case involving former Punjab police officers from Faridkot to Chandigarh.

Since the order was not yet signed by him, the single judge in an order passed on April 11 said the reporting appeared to be an attempt to overreach the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. Consequently, contempt of court proceedings were initiated against The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Jyoti Malhotra and others.

However, the Division Bench, which considered the contempt reference, in the judgment passed on May 6, noted Justice Dahiya’s judgment was dictated in open court and that the newspapers correctly reported about the order to transfer the trial from Faridkot to Chandigarh.

The contents of the aforesaid newspaper publications were not false and rather they were correct, the Bench said. Accordingly, the Court closed the proceedings.

“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,” it said.

[Read Judgment]