Media outlets are ‘angels on guard’ against arbitrary State action: High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has described media outlets, including print and electronic, as “angels on the guard” serving as sentinels against arbitrary State action. The court also ruled that fair reporting of judicial orders, upholding the administration of justice, was integral to the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution. It asserted that the media outlets must, as such, ensure their reporting did not compromise judicial processes.
“Fair reporting of court verdicts is an inseparable part of the administration of justice. Moreover, fair reporting also fosters freedom of the Press, be it print or electronic media, which are angels on guard not only against arbitrary state action but also in ensuring that verdicts of courts remain within the established principles of law,” the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed,
The court added the purpose of contempt jurisdiction was not to vindicate the personal dignity or honour of Judges, but to uphold the majesty of the law. It held that fair reporting of court proceedings, even if criticising a judge, did not attract criminal contempt unless it also undermined the administration of justice.
“Prima facie, if fair reports of court orders are made, whereby the majesty of law and the administration of justice are upheld, the mere consequence of a judge being personally attacked or scandalized through the publication of a news-item would not attract criminal contempt,” the court held.
The ruling came on a petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against an editor and a reporter for publishing a sub-judice matter along with the Judge’s photograph. It was of the view that the news was factually incorrect and that the reporter did not verify the facts.
The Bench noted that suo motu action had not been initiated by the court. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Bench asserted Advocate-General’s prior consent was required when contempt proceedings were initiated by an individual. “The only exception to the necessity of obtaining the prior consent of the Advocate-General is when the court initiates suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. Since no such action was taken in this case, the petition is mis-constituted,” the Bench held.
Emphasising the need to preserve people’s trust in the judiciary, the Bench asserted that the courts were the custodians of the public’s deep faith and confidence. People expected justice that was “unpolluted and undefiled emanating from the hallowed pens of the judges.”
Closing the contempt petition, the Bench also warned that suppressing fair reporting would lead to a dangerous erosion of judicial accountability. The judges could deviate from established laws and procedures without answerability. “If the freedom of expression is stifled through restrictions on fair reporting of judicial verdicts, there would be immense trauma. The stream of justice would become polluted, and the trust reposed by the general public in the administration of justice would erode, leading to chaos and anarchy in society,” the court remarked.
