JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: (Oral) - This Court on 03.06.2016 had taken a suo motu notice of the false publication carried in various newspapers and also some online edition particulars of which have been detailed therein. 2. Even though the hearing of the matter was in progress, the respondents carried news items of complete misinformation about the case by mentioning that it has been concluded in a particular way. 3. We may extract the note of this Court of dated 03.06.2016 hereinbelow: “Certified copies of the ‘Directorate list’ and ‘Supreme Court list’, as taken from the court, where the trial was held, were produced by learned counsel for the State in court yesterday, for which time was sought by learned counsel for the State on 18.5.2016. The same were perused by counsels for the appellants, whosoever wished to. Arguments heard. Judgement reserved. At this stage, Mr. Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants in one of the appeals produced before the court copies of the following newspapers: (i)Ranjai Bharat Secular (Hindi) published from Yamuna Nagar; (ii)Nitya Shakti Times (Hindi) published from Hissar; (iii)Panch Baje (Hindi) published from Hissar and; (iv)Pathak Paksh (Hindi) published from Hissar. He submitted that in the aforesaid newspapers news item was published that Division Bench of this court had set aside the selections of JBT teachers made in former Chief Minister – O. P. Chautala’s regime. In addition to that, identical news was published in online edition of the following newspapers: (i)Haryana News (Hindi); (ii)Amar Ujala (Hindi); (iii)Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi); and (iv)Pal Pal (Hindi). The aforesaid news item was published on 30.5.2016, the date on which even hearing in the appeals was yet to conclude as on 25.5.2016, the case was adjourned on request of learned counsel for the State to 2.6.2016. On that date, he was unable to produce certified copies of the record, as was noticed in the order dated 18.5.2016. On 2.6.2016, the arguments were partly heard and the case was adjourned for today for further arguments. Meaning thereby, the publication of news items in the newspapers on 30.5.2016 that selections of JBT Teachers made in former Chief Minister- O. P. Chautala’s regime was set aside by the Division Bench is contrary to record. The reporters and the Editors-in-chiefs of the newspapers have tried to scandalise the court and their action has resulted in interference in the administration of justice. The reporters and the Editors-in-chiefs of the newspapers have tried to scandalise the court and their action has resulted in interference in the administration of justice. Criminal contempt has been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the following terms: “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- xx xx xx (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 lower the authority of, any court; or (ii)prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii)interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. xx xx xx” The speech or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. A speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial is a grave contempt. As the reporters as well as Editorsin- chiefs of the following newspapers have not only scandalised the court by reporting wrong facts regarding decision of the case which, in fact, was still being heard in the court, but have even tried to interfere in the administration of justice by prejudicing the minds of the parties. Prima facie, they are guilty of contempt. The Editors-in-chiefs and the reporters of the following newspapers are required to be summoned: (i) Ranjai Bharat Secular (Hindi) published from Yamuna Nagar; (ii) Nitya Shakti Times (Hindi) published from Hissar; (iii) Panch Baje (Hindi) published from Hissar and; (iv) Pathak Paksh (Hindi) published from Hissar. (v) Haryana News (Hindi); (vi) Amar Ujala (Hindi); (vii) Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi); and (viii) Pal Pal (Hindi). They be summoned for 25.7.2016.” 4. Before us all the respondents are present and are represented by their respective counsels, who have not denied the publication and the misinformation contained therein. Each of them has stated that they (contemners) had not verified the facts before publishing the information in their newspaper and now expressed regrets for the same and undertake that in future it will not be repeated. 5. Each of them has stated that they (contemners) had not verified the facts before publishing the information in their newspaper and now expressed regrets for the same and undertake that in future it will not be repeated. 5. After having considered the matter at some length, we are of the opinion that it is a clear case where the respondents have displayed gross disregard for the process of law and substantially obstructed the fair course of justice by giving out false information in their publications about the case, which was in progress. 6. It is indeed a serious matter where the guardians of freedom of speech and expression acted irresponsibly to give misinformation to their readers and public at large which in the given situation can have devastating effect not only on the people who are involved in the controversy before this Court but even those beyond it particularly people in position and power who may have been adversely affected by such reporting. 7. We cannot thus wish away the conduct of the respondents to accept the explanation of mere carelessness. They are clearly guilty of contempt as defined in Section 2 of c(iii) and therefore, we ought to have proceed against them to hold them accountable for their act to inflict penal consequences on them in terms of the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act. 8. However, since all of them have expressed regrets and assured the Court of being careful in future and avoid a repetition, we would close the matter by accepting their apologies subject however to the condition that each of the respondents will be burdened with the costs of Rs.2,500/- which shall be deposited in the account of Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Association within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.