The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that fair reporting of court judgments is crucial for justice and press freedom, shielding journalists from contempt charges. This ruling highlights the press’s essential function in promoting transparency and accountability in state actions and judicial outcomes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that fair reporting of court judgments is vital to the administration of justice. The court acknowledged that such reporting “fosters freedom of press” and is an “inseparable part of administration of justice,” ensuring that judges operate within the bounds of law. This decision marks a critical stance in the protection of journalistic freedom, particularly in the context of legal reporting, where the press serves as a key player in safeguarding transparency.
The High Court’s view was clear that journalists and publishers should not face criminal contempt charges for fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings, even if such reports result in public scrutiny or criticism of a judge. The ruling reinforces the idea that the role of the press is crucial not only in monitoring state actions but also in overseeing court verdicts. As the High Court eloquently stated, the press—whether print or electronic—
“serve as protectors not only against blatant and arbitrary state actions but also in relation to court verdicts, ensuring they do not deviate from established legal principles and procedures, which are essential for maintaining the integrity of justice.”
BACKGROUND:
The case in question arose from a contempt petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association against the editor-in-chief and a reporter of an English daily. The petition was filed following the publication of a report on May 24, 2014, titled “HC grants bail to absconding Haryana duo against rules.” The report allegedly cast the court’s decision in a negative light, leading to accusations that the coverage had scandalized the judiciary.
However, the bench highlighted a significant procedural oversight. In this instance, the required consent from the Advocate General was not obtained before filing the contempt petition. The court underlined that obtaining this consent is mandatory unless contempt proceedings are initiated suo motu (on the court’s own motion). This procedural lapse became a pivotal factor in the dismissal of the contempt case.
The High Court’s judgment reaffirmed the role of the press as an essential pillar in the democratic process, tasked with keeping the judiciary accountable. The court underscored that accurate and fair reporting is not only permissible but necessary to ensure that the legal system remains transparent. The court also acknowledged that while some reports might inadvertently lead to criticism of judicial officers, this does not constitute contempt as long as the reporting is based on factual recounting of court proceedings.
“Fair reporting of court judgments fosters freedom of press and is an inseparable part of administration of justice,”
– the court reiterated.
This powerful affirmation of press freedom comes at a time when journalists across the globe face increasing scrutiny and, in some cases, legal challenges for reporting on sensitive court cases.
The judgment pointed out that a fair report, even if it leads to personal attacks or scandalizes a judge, does not automatically invite criminal contempt charges. Instead, the court held that journalists are acting within their rights, provided the reports are factual and do not distort the proceedings. This stance sends a clear message that the judiciary values the press’s role in fostering public accountability and maintaining the integrity of legal processes.
The concept of contempt of court is often invoked when the judiciary feels that its authority is being undermined or disrespected. However, the High Court clarified that in cases involving the press, the threshold for contempt is higher. This ensures that the press is not easily silenced, especially when performing its duty of reporting on matters of public interest.
In its ruling, the High Court observed-
“Prima facie, a publisher or reporter cannot be held liable for criminal contempt simply because a fair report of a court order leads to personal attacks or scandal against the judge.”
This interpretation underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the right to free speech and press freedom, provided that journalistic work adheres to fairness and accuracy.
The ruling also addressed the procedural misstep in the contempt petition. According to the High Court, in any case not initiated by the court Suo motu, the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory for proceeding with a criminal contempt case. In this instance, the absence of this consent meant that the petition was procedurally flawed from the outset, leading to its dismissal.
The court’s clarification on this procedural requirement is significant because it upholds the checks and balances necessary for the proper functioning of legal processes. It ensures that contempt petitions, which can have serious consequences for journalists and the media, are not filed without careful consideration and appropriate legal backing.
At the same time, the ruling underscores the responsibility of the press to ensure that their reporting is accurate and fair. It protects journalists from undue legal action while also holding them to a standard of fairness in their work.
“The press must stay vigilant while also upholding the highest standards of reporting, particularly in the context of legal proceedings.”
-the court noted.
