Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, We had taken suo motu cognizance of the news item published in the daily Edition of the Tribune on 27.11.2015 whereby the notice was issued to the local correspondent Sh. Kuldeep Chauhan why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

2. The Court on 21.11.2015 had issued the following directions:

a) The Chief Secretary is directed to ensure that no vehicle attached to the Hon’ble Judges is unnecessarily stopped or challened.

b) No vehicle except the vehicle of His Excellency Governor of Himachal Pradesh, Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Chief Justice and public utility vehicles as provided under the Act shall ply between Shimla Club to Lift and between Railway Board Building to C.T.O.

c) Till further orders by this Court, the permits/passes issued to ply the vehicles between Shimla Club to Lift and between Railway Board Building to C.T.O shall remain suspended.

d) Neither Additional District Magistrate nor Public Relation Officer, Shimla shall issue any permit to ply the vehicles either on sealed road or restricted road. The permits issued by these authorities shall not be valid till further orders by this Court.

3. Thereafter the matter was listed on 27.11.2015 whereby we had taken note of the news item, which appeared in the Tribune dated 22.11.2015 under the caption “Now, vehicles to keep off sealed roads in Shimla” and it was misquoted that the Judges/Chief Minister and Governor were entitled to use the sealed roads. The Court had categorically ordered on 21.11.2015 that the Governor, Chief Minister and Hon’ble Chief Justice only were entitled to use the sealed roads and the Judges of this Court were never permitted to use the sealed roads as quoted in the news item though clarified to some extent in the daily Edition dated 23.11.2015. The news item was published on 27.11.2015 under the caption “Harrowing time for commuters, others” and again it was misquoted that the Judges were permitted to use the sealed roads.

4. In view of this, show cause notice was issued to Mr. Kuldeep Chauhan, Local Correspondent of daily Edition of Tribune why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

5. Mr. Kuldeep Chauhan appeared before us and has filed an affidavit attested on 3.12.2015 extending unconditional and unqualified apology.

6. We were constrained to issue notice to the reporter of the Tribune for repeatedly committing mistakes by furnishing inaccurate and incorrect reports. The news items published by the medium of print have a great sway on the psyche of the public at large. The journalists must take necessary precautions, more particularly, while compiling the court proceedings. Ordinarily, oral observations made by the learned Advocate and Hon’ble Judges may not be carried in the news papers. We also hasten to add that Judges must accept healthy criticism of the judgments but the Judges should not be criticized. The inaccurate and incorrect news item is bound to prejudice the parties before the courts of law. Thus, reporting of the court proceedings of the pending cases before the courts of law commands utmost responsibility and sincerity. We are of the view that the proceedings in the courts of law must be reported by the correspondents with legal background and accredited to the Courts to avoid misquoting of court proceedings.

7. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines expressions “contempt of Court”, “civil contempt” and criminal contempt” as under:

“(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which :-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to low