The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that fair and accurate reporting of judicial orders pronounced in open court does not amount to contempt merely because the order remains unsigned, reaffirming the principles of open justice, press freedom, and transparency in judicial proceedings.
Reaffirming the principles of open justice and press freedom, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that fair and accurate media reporting of a judicial order pronounced in open court cannot amount to contempt of court merely because the order has not yet been signed by the judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Jasgurpreet Singh and Justice Amarjot Bhatti delivered the judgment while closing criminal contempt proceedings initiated against The Tribune, Hindustan Times, and The Times of India, along with certain editors and journalists associated with the publications.
The Court emphasized that once a judgment is formally pronounced in open court, it becomes operative and forms part of the judicial record. Therefore, reporting such proceedings accurately does not constitute interference with the administration of justice.
Referring to settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Bench observed:
“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,”
Background of the Controversy
The case originated from media reports published on April 10, 2025, by The Tribune, Hindustan Times, and The Times of India. The reports concerned a judgment that had been dictated in open court a day earlier, on April 9, by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya.
The order related to the transfer of a criminal trial involving former Punjab police officers from Faridkot to Chandigarh. Since the judgment had been pronounced in open court, journalists present during the proceedings reported the developments in their respective newspapers. However, at the time the reports were published, the written order had not yet been formally signed by Justice Dahiya.
Subsequently, on April 11, Justice Dahiya passed an order expressing concern over the publication of the reports before the signing of the judgment. The Court observed that such reporting appeared to be an attempt to overreach the judicial process and potentially interfere with the administration of justice. Consequently, criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against several individuals connected with the publications, including The Tribune‘s Editor-in-Chief Jyoti Malhotra and other editors and reporters.
Observations of the Court
The matter was later placed before a Division Bench for consideration of the contempt reference. While examining the issue, the Bench closely scrutinized the circumstances under which the news reports were published. It noted that Justice Dahiya had dictated the judgment in open court and that members of the press were entitled to report proceedings that had taken place publicly before the Court.
The Bench further found that the newspapers had accurately reported the contents of the order directing the transfer of the trial from Faridkot to Chandigarh.
Importantly, the Court observed that the reports did not contain any falsehood, distortion, or misleading information. Rather, the publications faithfully reflected what had transpired during the judicial proceedings. The Bench noted that the contents of the newspaper articles were factually correct and based on the order pronounced in open court.
The Division Bench reiterated the legal position that a judgment becomes operative upon its formal pronouncement in open court and does not lose its character merely because the signed copy is awaited.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court clarified that once a judicial order is pronounced, it enters the public domain and can legitimately be reported by the media, provided such reporting remains fair, accurate, and responsible.
The Court found no element of obstruction, interference, or scandalization of the judicial process in the reporting carried out by the newspapers. Since the reports merely conveyed the substance of an order already pronounced before the public and the Bar, the essential ingredients necessary to establish criminal contempt were absent.
After considering the facts and the applicable law, the Division Bench concluded that no case of criminal contempt was made out against the newspapers, editors, or journalists. Holding that the publications neither misrepresented the court proceedings nor interfered with the administration of justice, the Bench dismissed the contempt petition.
The Court observed:
“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 ruling serves as an important reaffirmation of the constitutional principles of open courts and freedom of the press, while also clarifying that truthful and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings cannot be penalized merely because the formal signed copy of an order is yet to be uploaded or released.
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v Jyoti Malhotra and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE