Fair Reporting Of Court Verdicts Is Insegregable Part Of Administration Of Justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Journalists

These remarks were made in the context of a contempt petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association in 2014 against Sanjay Narayan, the former editor-in-chief of Hindustan Times, and then-legal correspondent Sanjeev Verma. The contempt action was prompted by an article that reported a bail decision granted by a single judge of the High Court to an industrialist and his father, who were accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and had been declared proclaimed offenders. The article was headlined, “HC grants bail to absconding Hry industrialist against rules.”

A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma articulated that accurate reporting is essential to ensure that judges adhere to the law and established procedures. It said, “The fair reportings of the Court verdicts are an insegregable part of the administration of justice. Moreover, fair reporting also foster freedom of press, be it print or electronic media, which are angels in guard not only vis-a-vis brazen and arbitrary State action, but also are angels on guard vis-a-vis verdicts of Court of Law, omitting to derogate from the settled principles of law, and well established procedure, wherebys the administration of justice, rather may become defiled.”

The Court addressed whether a criminal contempt petition could be filed without prior consent from the Advocate General and assessed whether the news item constituted fair reporting. It concluded that the petition should not have proceeded without such consent, as it was not a case of suo motu contempt. “When the instant criminal contempt petition did not evidently become suo motu initiated. Consequently, this Court is led to declare that for want of obtaining of the apposite prior consent of the learned Advocate General, that thereby the instant petition is mis-constituted.” the Court stated.

Moreover, the Court pointed out that even if a fair report led to personal attacks or scandal on a judge, the reporter or publisher would not automatically face liability for criminal contempt, provided the reporting did not undermine the administration of justice or the rule of law. The Bench clarified, “In other words, the said personal attack made upon any Hon'ble Judge and/or in case any Hon'ble Judge is purportedly scandalized through printing of a news item relating to any judicial order or a judicial verdict passed by him. Nonetheless, the said media printing, unless, it also ruins the administration of justice or fails to uphold the majesty of law, thereupon, such appositely printed news item would not beget the ill consequence qua the author thereof or the publisher of the newspaper concerned, thus attracting against themselves any criminal contempt action.”

The Court underscored that the judiciary is a cornerstone of public trust, which expects "unpolluted and undefiled justice" from judges. It further emphasized that fair reporting serves to keep judges accountable and within the framework of established legal norms. The Court added, “It is but fair reporting which ensures that the Hon'ble Judges remain within the said bounds. Therefore, the above made expostulations of law, do condone fair reporting of verdicts of Hon'ble Judge, thus on the hinge that such fair reporting of verdicts of Hon'ble Judges, ensure that they do not breach the ordained processes, established procedures and established laws nor all above said become blatantly flouted,”

The Court also affirmed the importance of press freedom, asserting that the dissemination of information about court decisions is vital for maintaining fairness in the justice system. It said, “Moreover, thereby there would be a complete leeway and latitude to the Hon'ble Judge concerned, to proceed to derogate from settled laws and the established procedures, thus governing the lis concerned. Resultantly thereby the stream of justice would become polluted whereupon the trust reposed by the general public in the administration of justice, would become completely eroded, thus leading to chaos and anarchy in the society.”

The Court thus dismissed the contempt petition.

Cause Title: Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. Sanjay Narayan & Anr., [2024:PHHC:125003-DB]

Appearance:

Advocate Ankur Mittal serving as Amicus Curiae, alongside advocates PP Chahar, Kushaldeep Kaur, Saanvi Singla, and Sakal Sikri.

Respondents: Advocates NB Joshi and Samir Rathaur, Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta with the assistance of advocates Gautam Pathania and Sukhpal Singh