Judicial authority must exercise discretion in issuing Non-Bailable Warrants judiciously, ensuring the accused’s presence to uphold the integrity of the investigatory process, especially in serious economic offenses.

CRL.M.A. 20618/2025:

1. An Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner for appropriate action.

2. The Application submits that the matter was listed for hearing on 16.07.2025. It is submitted that certain false, malicious, and defamatory News Articles were reported on 16.07.2025, and 17.07.2025, targeting the professional reputation and dignity of Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. These Articles attributed false statements to this Court, purportedly made during the course of the hearing on July 16, 2025.

3. The matter had come up for hearing on July 16, 2025, at around 11:45 A.M. After being heard, the matter was reserved for judgment, while the connected matters were deferred for hearing on another date. However, the Media houses, while reporting the proceedings of 16.07.2025, falsely projected that adverse observations were made against the learned Senior Counsel, stating that his conduct of seeking instructions was an act “unbecoming” of a Senior Advocate. It is submitted that no such statement was ever made by this Court and does not form part of the judicial Order recorded on 16.07.2025.

4. It is submitted that the Media reporting dated 16.07.2025, started at around 9:00 P.M. with an Article titled, “Agusta Westland case: Delhi High Court reserved order on an accused plea to quash an NBW.” In the first few Articles reported between 9:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. on 16.07.2025, there is no reference to the alleged remark of this Court. Subsequently, however, it appears that with a mala fide intent to personally tarnish the reputation of the learned Senior Counsel, a false and defamatory narrative of the proceedings dated July 16, 2025, was circulated to various Media houses, who have been reporting the said narrative without even verifying its authenticity. There were four Media Reports with no averment against the learned Senior Counsel. However, six Articles appeared in CNN News-18, The Tribune Group, The Times Group, Rabhyaa-Rabhav Corp. Pvt. Ltd. (Law Trend), Indian Express Ltd., and CSR Journal on 17.07.2025, giving the false narrative, as stated above.

5. It is submitted that the selective and delayed reporting, which surfaced many hours after the hearing, raises strong suspicion of orchestration intended to deliberately revile the learned Senior Counsel’s image. It appears that certain words have been quoted as if they were part of the judicial Order, to create a false impression that the observations were made by this Court.

6. Reliance is placed on Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. vs. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603, which observed that the media must avoid reporting that prejudices ongoing proceedings or misleads public opinion. Similarly, reliance is placed on Surya Prakash Khatri vs. Madhu Trehan , 2001 SCC OnLine Del 590, which stated that journalists cannot claim immunity when they publish a distorted or false version of Court proceedings. Likewise, in Gaurav Bhatia vs. Naveen Kumar , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2704, it was observed that the media has a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there is also a corresp