Accurate Reporting of Un-signed Judgment Does Not Constitute Contempt, Rules Court
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a criminal contempt petition against several newspapers, including The Tribune, The Hindustan Times, and The Times of India, for publishing reports on a judicial pronouncement that was dictated in open court but not yet signed. The court held that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings does not amount to contempt of court under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The case, initiated by the court on its own motion, pertained to the publication of news articles reporting the transfer of trial proceedings from the Sessions Court, Faridkot to the court of competent jurisdiction at U.T., Chandigarh. The articles were published after a judgment was dictated in court on April 9, 2026, but before the judgment was signed.
The bench, comprising Justices Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Amarjot Bhatti, examined the publications and found them to be accurate reflections of the judicial proceedings. The court noted that the decision to transfer the trials was indeed pronounced in open court, and the substance of the news articles accurately captured this decision.
The court referred to the judgment in Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., which established that a judgment becomes operative once pronounced in open court, even if not signed. This principle was reiterated in subsequent Supreme Court rulings, including Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit v. State of Gujarat.
The judges emphasized that the essence of a judgment is its formal pronouncement in open court, and subsequent steps like signing and sealing are procedural, not essential to its validity. Therefore, the publication of the decision, even before formal signing, was permissible as long as it was accurate and fair.
In light of these observations, the court concluded that the actions of the newspapers did not constitute criminal contempt. The court’s dismissal of the petition underscores the importance of press freedom in reporting court proceedings, provided the reports are accurate and truthful.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings is not contempt of court under Section 4 of the Act, even if the judgment has been dictated but not signed, provided the reporting is correct and reflects the substance of the decision pronounced in open court.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 4
Court on Its Own Motion v. Jyoti Malhotra, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2898596
