Back
Initiates Against ,
The has taken a significant step in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary by initiating proceedings against the publishers and editors-in-chief of two major national dailies— and . The action stems from front-page advertisements published on , which the court found capable of scandalizing its authority and obstructing the . The advertisements, placed by , sought to propagate a narrative that its chief, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, was the victim of a conspiracy, insinuating that the courts were complicit in the alleged plot.
The division bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik listed the matter for , after taking cognizance of a reference order passed by Justice Subhas Mehla on . The court has directed the issuance of notices to the Dera management, the publishers, and the editors-in-chief of both newspapers. Additionally, the , has been asked to assist in obtaining details of the contemnors.
The Advertisement and Its Controversy
The advertisement in question, titled
"What is
? (Facts vs Fiction)"
, appeared on the front pages of both newspapers. It included a sub-heading:
"Was there a conspiracy against Guru Ji?"
—a direct reference to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for the rape of two disciples. His appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court. The
chief has also been acquitted in two separate murder cases in
and
.
subsequently issued a public apology following backlash from readers and legal observers. However, the apology did not prevent the court from taking a serious view of the matter. Justice Subhas Mehla, while initially taking note of the advertisements, observed that the content had the tendency to
"
"
and could
"
."
Legal Framework: Article 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act
The High Court invoked its constitutional power under , which empowers every High Court to punish for contempt of itself. This power is inherent and cannot be abrogated by statute. Additionally, the court relied on . Section 2(c) defines to include the publication of any matter that scandalizes or tends to scandalize the authority of any court, or that interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding. Section 15(1) allows a High Court to take cognizance of on its own motion.
Justice Mehla, in his reference order, stated:
"On a
consideration of the aforesaid advertisement publications, this Court is of the view that the contents thereof may have the
or lower the authority of this Court."
He further noted that issuing public appeals and paid narratives to insinuate that courts are party to a conspiracy while appeals are pending is
"an attempt to
and influence the judicial process which directly
."
Implications for Media and Free Expression
This case raises critical questions about the boundary between paid advertising and . While freedom of the press is a fundamental right under , it is not absolute. Courts have consistently held that publications that prejudice a pending trial or scandalize the judiciary can be punished as contempt. The , in and , has laid down that the test is whether the publication or lowers the authority of the court.
In the present case, the advertisements were not news reports but paid content. The court's concern is that such narratives, if allowed unchecked, could influence public perception and potentially affect the outcome of pending appeals. The fact that the advertisements appeared on the front page of two leading newspapers amplifies their potential impact. Legal experts point out that even if the newspapers did not endorse the content, their decision to publish it for a fee may still attract liability if the material is found to be contemptuous.
The Road Ahead: What Happens on November 25
The matter has been adjourned to , when the respondents will have the opportunity to file their replies and argue against the initiation of contempt proceedings. At this stage, the court has only taken cognizance and issued notices. No finding of guilt has been returned, and the allegations remain untested. The editors and publishers may argue that they were not aware of the contemptuous nature of the advertisement, or that the publication was a routine commercial transaction.
However, the court's strong language in the reference order suggests that it views the matter seriously. If the respondents fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, the court may proceed to frame charges and conduct a full trial. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, a person found guilty of can be punished with simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both. In egregious cases, the court may also impose a higher sentence under its .
Why This Case Matters for Legal Professionals
For lawyers and judges, this case underscores the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary. It serves as a reminder that even is subject to constitutional limitations when it threatens to undermine the rule of law. The proceedings also highlight the proactive role that High Courts can take in protecting their own processes from external interference.
Media law practitioners will be watching closely. The outcome could set a precedent regarding the liability of publishers for third-party advertisements that contain contemptuous material. It may also influence how newspapers vet paid content that touches on pending litigation.
Conclusion
The 's decision to initiate contempt proceedings against two prominent newspapers sends a clear message: the judiciary will not tolerate any attempt to manipulate public opinion or discredit its functioning, especially while matters are . As the case unfolds, it will test the delicate balance between the freedom of the press and the need to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings. The November 25 hearing will be a critical juncture, determining whether the editors and publishers can demonstrate that they did not intend to scandalize the court or obstruct justice.
