Publishing News Reports Of Orders Dictated In Open Court But Not Yet Signed Is Not Criminal Contempt: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Once there is a formal 'pronouncement' in open court, it becomes a judgment in operation, and the action on the part of newspapers cannot be termed as criminal contempt, " Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that publishing fair and accurate news reports regarding a judgment dictated in open court does not constitute criminal contempt, even if the order has not yet been signed by the judge.

A Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti observed that once a judgment is formally pronounced or delivered in open court, it becomes the operative decision of the court and a declaration of its mind.

The matter originated from a suo motu cognizance taken by a Single Judge who had dictated an order in two transfer petitions—CRM-M-47941-2024 and CRM-M-17867-2025—pertaining to FIRs in the Kotkapura case. Although the order was dictated in open court on April 9, 2026, it remained unsigned. However, the following day, prominent newspapers including The Tribune, The Hindustan Times, and The Times of India reported that the High Court had transferred the trial from Faridkot to Chandigarh. The Single Judge prima facie viewed this as an attempt to overreach the court and interfere with the administration of justice, leading to the reference for criminal contempt.

The primary question before the court was whether the publication of news reports regarding a judicial order dictated in open court but not yet signed constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court was also called upon to determine the legal effect and nature of a judgment that has been pronounced orally but awaits formal authentication through signature.

Fair And Accurate Reporting Protected Under Contempt Of Courts Act

The Division Bench began by examining the statutory protections afforded to the media under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court noted that a person shall not be guilty of contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof. Since the newspapers accurately reported the transfer of the trial as dictated in the open court, the bench found no falsehood in the publications.

Reporting Based On Open Court Dictation Is Not Incorrect

The court highlighted that the reporting made in the newspapers could not be termed incorrect because the perusal of the final judgment confirmed that the trials were indeed transferred. As the reporting was found to be fair and accurate, the bench concluded that it would not constitute contempt in light of the statutory provisions.

Court Explains The Essence Of A "Judgment"

To determine the validity of the publication, the court delved into the nature of what constitutes a "judgment." Drawing guidance from the landmark Supreme Court decision in Surendra Singh and others versus State of U.P. (1954), the bench observed that a judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in open court.

"The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the Court and that is what constitutes the judgment."

Signing Is A Rule Of Authentication, Not Essence

The bench emphasized that while rules provide for the manner in which a judgment is to be authenticated and made certain, these rules do not form the essence of the matter. Any irregularity in the signing or authentication process is curable and does not affect the validity of a judgment that has been validly delivered in open court. The court noted that a judgment becomes operative the moment it is delivered, and it does not await the signing thereof.

"If a judgment happens not to be signed and is inadvertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good."

Precedential Support For Operative Nature Of Delivered Judgments

The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Vinod Kumar Singh versus Banaras Hindu University (1988) and Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit versus State of Gujarat (2014). These cases reiterated that as soon as a judgment is delivered, it becomes the operative pronouncement of the court. The bench observed that this principle ensures that the public declaration of the judge's mind in open court is treated as final and conclusive.

No Attempt To Overreach The Court Found

Applying these legal principles to the facts at hand, the Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge's prima facie view that the newspapers attempted to overreach the court. It held that since the judgment was dictated in open court on April 9, 2026, the subsequent publications on April 10 were merely reports of a judicial proceeding that had already reached the stage of pronouncement.

"The contents of the aforesaid newspaper publications were not false and rather they were correct... the action on the part of the aforesaid newspapers/Editors-in-Chief/Editors/Reporters cannot be termed as criminal contempt."

The Division Bench concluded that the reporting was protected under the law as a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding. Consequently, the court found that no further orders were required in the matter and dismissed the criminal contempt petition.

Date of Decision: 06 May 2026