Fair Court Reporting Is An Inseparable Part Of Administration Of Justice, Ensures Judges Remain Within Bounds: P&H High Court

Observing that fair court reporting is an inseparable part of the administration of justice, the Punjab & Haryana High Court closed the criminal contempt case against the Hindustan Times former editor-in-chief Sanjay Narayan and then legal correspondent Sanjeev Verma for allegedly reporting the order incorrectly.

Verma had written an article stating the High Court judge had granted bail to an industrialist and his father, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, in violation of the rules and despite the duo having been declared proclaimed offenders and no opportunity was given to State to oppose the bail.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma 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 also said that the journalist would not be liable for contempt if the article personally attacks the judge through the reporting of the judgement unless "it also ruins the administration of justice or fails to uphold the majesty of law."

The Contempt plea was filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association in 2014 against Hindustan Times' former editor-in-chief Sanjay Narayan and then legal correspondent Sanjeev Verma.

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question of whether a criminal contempt petition could have been filed without the prior consent of the Advocate General and also analyzed whether the news item was a case of fair reporting.

“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,” answered the bench.

Fair Reporting Ensures Judges Remains Within Bounds

The Court also highlighted that Courts of law are the repository of deep trust and confidence of the public at large, "who expect unpolluted and undefiled justice emanating from the hallowed pens of Hon'ble Judge(s)."

Therefore, the Hon'ble Judges are to ensure that they uphold the administration of justice. Moreover, they are expected to also uphold the majesty of law through dispensing undefiled justice, through their judgments which are to be within the bounds of the established norms and procedures. It is but fair reporting which ensures that the Hon'ble Judges remain within the said bounds," it added.

Dissemination Of Fair Court Reporting Ensures Freedom Of Expression, Can't Be Stifled

The division bench observed that dissemination of news amongst the public either by the print media or the electronic media appertaining to fair reporting of verdicts of the Courts of Law ensures fairness in the administration of justice by the Judges and the freedom of expression which cannot become stifled.

“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,” it added.

In light of the above, the court closed the contempt plea.

Mr.AnkurMittal,Advocate(AmicusCuriae) Mr. P.P.Chahar, Advocate with Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate.

Mr. N.B.Joshi, Advocate with Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate and Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

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

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 264

Click here to read/download the order