Fair reporting in court is an integral part of the administration of justice and ensures that judges exercise their powers: P&H High Court

Observing that fair reporting in court is an inseparable part of administration of justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed criminal contempt of court proceedings against former Hindustan Times Editor-in-Chief Sanjay Narayan and then Legal Correspondent Sanjeev Verma for allegedly misrepresenting the court order.

Verma had written an article saying that a Supreme Court judge had granted bail to an industrialist and his father in a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in violation of rules and despite the fact that the two had been declared offenders, and had not given the state an opportunity to object to the bail.

Judge Sureshwar Thakur And Judge Sudeepti Sharma said, “Fair reporting of court judgments is an inseparable part of administration of justice. Moreover, fair reporting also promotes freedom of the press, be it in print or electronic form, which not only protects against brash and arbitrary government actions but also against court judgments, as it fails to deviate from the laid down legal principles and well-established procedures, which is more likely to taint the administration of justice..”

The court also stated that the journalist could not be held liable for contempt of court if the article personally attacked the judge by reporting on the verdict, unless “it also ruins the administration of justice or violates the majesty of the law”.

The contempt of court petition was filed in 2014 by the Bar Association of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against former Hindustan Times Editor-in-Chief Sanjay Narayan and then Legal Correspondent Sanjeev Verma.

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered whether an action for criminal contempt of court could have been brought without the prior consent of the Advocate General and also analyzed whether the news story was a case of fair reporting.

“As the present criminal action for contempt of court was evidently not initiated on the applicant’s own initiative, this Court must therefore find that the present action is malformed in the absence of the prior sanction of the learned Advocate General.“, the court replied.

Fair reporting ensures that judges stick to their limits

The court also emphasized Courts are the source of deep trust among the general public.await the pure and unblemished justice that comes from the holy pens of the honorable judges.”

Therefore, the Honourable Judges must ensure that they uphold the administration of justice. Moreover, they are also expected to uphold the majesty of the law by dispensing impeccable justice by keeping their judgments within the confines of established norms and procedures. Only fair reporting will ensure that the Honourable Judges remain within the said confines.“, it added.

The dissemination of fair court reporting guarantees freedom of expression and cannot be suppressed

The Court of Appeal found that the dissemination of news to the public, whether through the print media or the electronic media in the context of fair reporting of court judgments, ensures fair administration of justice by judges and freedom of expression cannot be restricted.

“Moreover, this would give the Hon'ble Judge concerned complete latitude and freedom to deviate from the existing laws and established procedures and thus dispose of the cases in question. This would contaminate the legal process, thereby completely destroying public confidence in the administration of justice, leading to chaos and anarchy in the society.” it added.

In view of the above facts, the Court dismissed the appeal for contempt of court.

Mr. AnkurMittal, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Mr. PPChahar, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate.

Mr. NBJoshi, Advocate, along with Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for defendant No. 1.

Mr. Anupam Gupta, senior counsel, with Mr. Gautam Pathania, advocate, and Mr. Sukhpal Singh, counsel for respondent No. 2.

Mr. Swarn Singh Tiwana, Secretary and Mr. Sukhchain Singh Gill, Advocate, Executive Member, Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Courts.

Title: Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Narayan and another

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 264

Click here to read/download the order