Accurate Reporting Of Orally Dictated Order Before Signing Not Contempt : P&H High Court Drops Proceedings Against Media
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed criminal contempt proceedings initiated suo motu against editors and reporters of leading newspapers, holding that publication of a fair and accurate report of a judgment dictated in open court does not amount to contempt, even if the judgment had not yet been formally signed.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti, referring to Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noted, "a person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court for publishing judicial proceeding if the same is fairly and accurately reported. In the present case, as observed above, the reporting made in the newspaper was in fact fair and accurate and therefore, would not constitute as contempt of Court in light of the aforesaid provision."
The bench further pointed, "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 contempt proceedings arose from a reference made by a Single Judge on April 11, 2026, concerning media reports published on April 10, 2026, in newspapers including The Tribune, The Hindustan Times, and The Times of India.
The reports stated that the High Court had transferred the trial in certain FIRs—popularly referred to as the Kotkapura firing cases—from Faridkot to Chandigarh.
The Single Judge noted that although the order had been dictated in open court on April 9, 2026, it had not yet been signed. Observing that the news appeared to have been published “without any basis,” the Judge prima facie viewed it as an attempt to overreach the court and interfere with the administration of justice, and directed initiation of contempt proceedings against the Editors-in-Chief, Editors, and Reporters involved
The Division Bench examined two key questions, whether the news reports were factually incorrect or misleading; and whether publication of a judgment dictated in open court but not yet signed would amount to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Reporting Was Factually Accurate
The Bench perused the common judgment dated April 9, 2026, passed in two petitions, Charanjit Sharma v. State of Punjab and Paramraj Singh Umaranangal v. State of Punjab, which indeed ordered the transfer of the concerned FIR trials from Faridkot to Chandigarh.
The Court held that the contents of the newspaper reports were consistent with the actual judgment and therefore could not be termed false or misleading.
Fair and Accurate Reporting Protected Under Law
Relying on Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court reiterated that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings does not constitute contempt.
Since the publications correctly reflected the decision pronounced in court, they fell squarely within this statutory protection.
Judgment Becomes Operative Upon Pronouncement
The Bench undertook an extensive review of Supreme Court precedents, including, Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954), Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (1988).
Referring to these rulings, the Court emphasized that a judgment becomes operative once it is formally pronounced or dictated in open court, even if it has not yet been signed.
The Court noted that the act of pronouncement is the decisive judicial act that communicates the Court's decision to the parties and the public. Subsequent procedural steps such as signing or sealing the judgment are matters of authentication and do not affect its operative nature.
In light of the above, the Court held that the media reports were fair, accurate, and based on a valid judicial pronouncement.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. JYOTI MALHOTRA AND OTHERS