Fair Court Reporting Keeps Judges In Check: P&H HC

Preface
It is definitely most delighting to learn that in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association vs Sanjay Narayan and Another in CROCP-10-2014 and cited in Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125003-DB that was reserved on 09.09.2024 and then finally pronounced on 20.09.2024 has minced just no words to say in no uncertain terms that fair reporting of court verdicts is an inseparable part of administration of justice and it ensures that judges remain within the bounds of law. It is most rejoicing, most refreshing and most reassuring to note that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sudeepti Sharma added that fair reporting of court verdicts also ensures that judges do not breach the established procedure and laws! The Division Bench also mandated that the freedom of expression of journalists cannot be stiffled as dissemination of news related to court verdicts ensures fairness in administration of justice by judges.
It must be disclosed here that the Division Bench made the key observations batting most strongly in favour of journalists while dealing with a contempt petition that had been moved by Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association in 2014 against the 100-years-old esteemed Hindustan Times newspaper former Editor-in-Chief Sanjay Narayan and then legal correspondent Sanjeev Verma. Verma in his news article had written a news article stating that a single-Judge of the Chandigarh High Court Hon’ble Mr Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar had granted bail to an industrialist and his father in violation of the rules and despite the duo having been declared proclaimed offenders in a case under the NDPS Act in the international multi-crore drug racket by the Patiala Trial Court. The Division Bench was most unequivocal in holding that even if a fair report of a court orders results in the judge becoming personally attacked or scandalised, prima facie the reporter or publisher cannot be held liable for criminal contempt. In this backdrop, it was but natural that the Division Bench most commendably closed the contempt petition!
Introduction
At the very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sureshwar Thakur for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sudeepti Sharma sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Through the filing of the instant criminal contempt petition, the petitioner herein prays for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against respondents No. 1 and 2, for publishing in a subjudice matter, news clipping in the newspaper (Hindustan Times) alongwith the photograph of the Hon’ble sitting Judge of this Court.”
Brief facts of the case
To put things in perspective and briefly stated, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim bail in an NDPS matter to two petitioners namely, Perdipt Chaudhary and Prithvi Singh and asked them to surrender before the next date of hearing. Subsequent to the passing of the said order, a news clipping was published in the newspaper namely Hindustan Times, on 24.05.2014. The relevant contents of the news article is extracted hereinafter. “H.T. Dated: 24.05.2014 Exclusive HC grants bail to absconding Haryana duo against rules Bhola Drug Racket Unholy nexus Sanjeev Verma [email protected] Chandigarh: In a surprising judgment, Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar of the Punjab and Haryana high Court has granted bail to Haryana industrialist and his father who have been declared proclaimed offenders in the international multi-crore drug racket by the Patiala trial court. The order has come without even giving an opportunity to the state counsel to oppose the petition as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Perdipt Chaudhary and his father Prithvi Singh had sought directions for staying operation of the Patiala trial court’s order of April 24 declaring them proclaimed offenders, through Senior Advocate RS Cheema. It was on the first date of hearing of the application on May 19 that Justice Sullar granted them interim bail without prior notice to the Punjab Government. The father-son duo is on the run since raids were conducted by the Punjab Police at their factory premises, Pioneer Laboratories at Rishi Nagar, Karnal, on October 7 last year. The order not only violates the directions issued by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of granting an opportunity to the investigating officer in bail matters to present his side to the court but is also against Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Act says that no accused “shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “Subsequent to the publication of the said Article, the counsel for the petitioners wrote a letter to the Editor, Hindustan Times stating that the news article dated 24.05.2014 is factually incorrect and that the reporter without verifying the facts, had proceeded to publish the apposite news items in the newspaper (supra).”
As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “Pursuant to the afore letter, the respondent concerned published another article in the newspaper concerned, carrying therein explanation(s) and verified facts vis-a-vis the publication of the earlier article dated 24.05.2014.”
Truth be told, the Division Bench then reveals in para 5 that, “The present contempt petition was filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, against the respondents herein.”
Further, the Bench states in para 6 that, “Notice of motion was issued by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2014. Pursuant to the said issued notice, the contemnors filed their respective counter affidavits to the petition.”
Cornerstone of this judgment
Most remarkably, the Division Bench propounds in para 24 that, “The 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. Therefore, the above made expostulations of law, do condone fair reportings of verdicts of Hon’ble Judge, thus on the hinge that such fair reporting of verdicts of Hon’ble Judges, ensure that they do not breach the ordained processes, established procedures and established laws nor all above said become blatantly flouted.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 25 postulating that, “Reiteratedly, if the said principle is undermined, thereby, the freedom of expression, as endowed upon any citizen would become infringed. Moreover, when through 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, thus thereby becomes ensured the necessity of ensuring the fairness in the administration of justice, by the Hon’ble Judges, thereby too, the freedom of expression but cannot become stifled. Resultantly when thereby the necessity of upholding the majesty of law, and, the administration of justice, through fair reportings of judicial verdicts becoming made, but would also beget immense trauma. 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.”
Inference of this Court
As things stands, the Bench stipulates in para 18 that, “On an incisive reading of the hereinabove extracted underlined paragraphs, as carried in the judgment (supra), the hereinafter formulated questions of law, thus require becoming answered.
a) Whether the criminal contempt proceedings were amenable to be drawn against the contemnor concerned, without obtaining the prior consent of the Advocate General concerned, especially, when it is contended before this Court that the criminal contempt petitions, became generated from a petition filed before this Court, by the petitioner, whereby thus ex facie, no so motu action became initiated by this Court vis-a-vis the instant criminal contempt petition.
b) Whether, prima facie, the publication of the news item (supra) was a fair reporting besides upheld the majesty of law and administration of justice, than through the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the contemnors concerned, thereby, this Court rather proceeding to vindicate the dignity and honour of the Hon’ble Judge, who purportedly became personally attacked or scandalized.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 19 that, “For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the Court answers both the questions (supra) against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
I) The instant contempt petition has been instituted by the petitioner, thus thereby the instant petition cannot become classified to fall in the category of suo motu actions for criminal contempt becoming drawn against the contemnors.
II) The natural corollary of the above, is that, in terms of the three sources for assumption of competent criminal contempt jurisdiction, as become underlined in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as ‘Prashant Bhushan and Another, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 745, whereby excepting suo motu initiation of criminal contempt proceedings rather by the Contempt Court, thus permission of the Advocate General is imperatively required. Resultantly, since the petition for contempt has been filed without the prior permission of the Advocate General concerned. Moreover, when no suo motu action for criminal contempt against the contemnors becomes initiated on the basis of the news paper clipping. Predominantly also since a reading of all the orders commencing from the date of filing of the instant contempt petition, in the year 2014, uptill now omits to unravel, that this Court irrespective of the fact that the criminal contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, and, that too without the consent of the Advocate General, thus had converted the said petition into suo motu actions taking against the contemnor concerned. Therefore, the lack of makings of the apposite orders qua conversion by this Court from the petition filed without the consent of the Advocate General, into a suo motu action takings against the respondents, thus since 2014, uptill now, but leads to an inevitable conclusion that no suo motu criminal contempt proceedings became initiated by this Court against the contemnors concerned. Contrarily, when the petitioners took to file the instant criminal contempt petition, without the ordained consent of the Advocate General concerned. In sequel, since the only exception to the necessity of obtaining the apposite prior consent from the Advocate General, is the initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings by this Court. However, 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.”
Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 20 that, “Be that as it may, it becomes candidly declared in the above extracted underlined paragraphs No. 79 and 80, carried in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as ‘Prashant Bhushan and Another, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 745, that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction requires that it becomes so exercised only for vindicating the majesty of law and the administration of justice rather than to vindicate the dignity and honour of the Hon’ble Judge, who is purportedly personally attacked or scandalized.”
Be it noted, the Bench also notes in para 21 that, “Therefore, prima facie, if fair reportings of Court orders are made, whereby the majesty of law and the administration of justice becomes vindicated. Consequently, if the said prima facie, fair reporting of an order made by the Hon’ble Judge also begets the consequence of the Hon’ble Judge becoming purportedly personally attacked or scandalized. In sequel, prima facie, the makings of personal attack upon any Hon’ble Judge, besides any Hon’ble Judge becoming purportedly scandalized upon printing of a news clip relating to the passing of the judicial orders, but would not attract against author of the news clipping or the publisher concerned, any actions for criminal contempt becoming drawn against them.”
To put it differently, the Division Bench further adds in para 22 that, “In other words, the said personal attack made upon any Hon’ble Judge and/or in case any Hon’ble Judge is purportedly scandalized through printing of a news item relating to any judicial order or a judicial verdict passed by him. Nonetheless, the said media printing, unless, it also ruins the administration of justice or fails to uphold the majesty of law, thereupon, such appositely printed news item would not beget the ill consequence qua the author thereof or the publisher of the newspaper concerned, thus attracting against themselves any criminal contempt action.”
It is certainly worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 23 that, “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, whereby the administration of justice, rather may become defiled.”
Conclusion
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by mandating in para 26 that, “The questions of law are answered accordingly. The contempt petition is closed and the Rule is discharged.”
To sum up, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has most commendably upheld the press and the media whether it is print or electronic as the fourth pillar of the Indian democracy which is most inevitable and has to be accorded the highest esteem even by judiciary! It was also made absolutely clear by the Chandigarh High Court that fair reporting keeps judges in check and so also at the risk of repetition has to be stated that it is an inseparable part of administration of justice which cannot be ever taken for granted even by the judiciary! This most commendable judgment definitely deserves to be emulated not only by the High Courts of different States but also by the Apex Court! It vindicates the most sacred role that press plays and so also journalists who form an insegregable part of it who deserves to be admired and applauded and not hauled up for fair reporting as we see was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this leading case! No denying!