Fair reporting of court verdicts is an inseparable part of administration of justice and it ensures that judges remain within the bounds of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed on Friday [Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association vs Sanjay Narayan and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma added that fair reporting of court verdicts also ensures that judges do not breach the established procedure and laws.
“The fair reporting 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,” the Court said.
The Court made the observations while dealing with a contempt petition moved by Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association in 2014 against Hindustan Times’ former editor-in-chief Sanjay Narayan and then legal correspondent Sanjeev Verma.
Verma had written a news article stating that a single-judge of the High Court had granted bail to an industrialist and his father, in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, in violation of the rules and despite the duo having been declared proclaimed offenders.
The Court considered 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.
The Court answered the questions in favour of Narayan and Verma and said the Advocate General’s consent was necessary in the case since it was not a case of suo motu action for criminal contempt against the editor and reporter.
“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.”
The Court also observed 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 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,” the Bench said.
It further commented that courts of law are a repository of deep trust and confidence of the public which expects “unpolluted and undefiled justice” from the “hallowed pens” of judges.
The judges thus are to ensure they uphold the administration of justice and are expected to also uphold the majesty of law by passing judgments within the bounds of established norms and procedure, the Court added.
“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 reporting 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,” the Bench said.
The Court also said the freedom of expression of journalists cannot be stifled as dissemination of news related to court verdicts ensures fairness in administration of justice by judges.
“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 this backdrop, the Court closed the contempt petition.
Advocate Ankur Mittal served as Amicus Curiae in the case and appeared along with advocates PP Chahar, Kushaldeep Kaur, Saanvi Singla and Sakal Sikri.
Advocates NB Joshi and Samir Rathaur represented Sanjay Narayan.
Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta with advocates Gautam Pathania and Sukhpal Singh represented Sanjeev Verma.
Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Secretary Swarn Singh Tiwana and Advocate Sukhchain Singh Gill also appeared in the matter.
[Read Judgment]