The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed criminal contempt proceedings initiated against editors and reporters of three newspapers over reports concerning the transfer of two high-profile Punjab criminal trials from Faridkot to Chandigarh. The court held that the reports were fair, accurate, and based on a judgment that had already been pronounced in open court.
Background of the Case
The matter arose after a single judge of the High Court took suo motu cognizance of newspaper reports published on April 10, 2026, in The Tribune, The Hindustan Times, and The Times of India. The reports stated that the High Court had transferred the Kotkapura-related criminal trials from Faridkot to Chandigarh.
The concern raised was that the detailed order had been dictated in open court on April 9, 2026, but had not yet been formally signed. The single judge expressed a prima facie view that publication of the news before the signing of the order could amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and referred the matter for contempt proceedings.
A division bench comprising Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti examined both the newspaper reports and the underlying transfer judgment.
The bench found that the reports accurately reflected what the court had decided. The judges noted that the trials in the two FIR cases had in fact been transferred from Faridkot to Chandigarh, meaning there was “no falsehood in the publication.”
Referring to Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court observed that a person cannot be held guilty of contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings.
The bench further relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, which recognize that once a judgment is formally pronounced in open court, it becomes operative, even if the process of signing and authentication is completed later.
“The reporting made in the newspaper was in fact fair and accurate and therefore, would not constitute contempt of Court,” the bench observed.
Holding that the judgment had already been pronounced in open court and that the newspaper reports correctly conveyed the substance of that decision, the High Court concluded that the actions of the newspapers, their editors, and reporters could not be treated as criminal contempt.
“The action on the part of the aforesaid newspapers/Editors-in-Chief/Editors/Reporters cannot be termed as criminal contempt,” the bench stated.
The court accordingly dismissed the criminal contempt petition and disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. Jyoti Malhotra and Others
Case Number: CROCP-6-2026
Judges: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti
Decision Date: May 6, 2026
