IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Sarin and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
Court on its own motion - Appellants
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondent
WP (Crl.) No. 796/2007
Decided On: 21.08.2008
Interference with administration of justice--Collusion of Special Public Prosecutor with defence lawyers, viz., R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan in BMW case shown through sting operation by media (NDTV)--Conduct of lawyer--Influencing star witness to alter his evidence--Video footage genuine-- Contempt committed by both--Both not tendered any apology--Prohibited from appearing in High Court or subordinate courts for 4 months but are free to discharge their professional duties--Full court recommended to strip them of their designation of Senior Advocate--Liable to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal contempt of Court or not. We have found Mr. Anand and Mr. Khan guilty of criminal contempt of Court for reasons recorded in the judgment. Neither of them had tendered any apology or demonstrated contrition or repentance for their actions. Accordingly, towards the end of the judgment, we have pronounced the punishment awarded to them. We have found Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma not guilty of criminal contempt of Court.
.2. On 30th May, 2007 a TV news channel NDTV carried a report relating to a sting operation. The report concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the BMW case.
3. On 31st May, 2007 a Division Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 796 of 2007 since it was of the opinion that if the reported contents were true, they raise serious issues concerning criminal justice administration. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench felt it expedient and in the interest of justice to ascertain the full facts from NDTV.
4. The Division Bench issued a direction to the Registrar General to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast and also directed NDTV to preserve the original material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting operation.
5. It appears that simultaneously the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the BMW case was pending also instituted an inquiry into the contents of the report and on 1st June, 2007 the Managing Editor of NDTV produced before him three chips and five CDs containing the material in the three chips (which had the original unedited recording). However, since this Court was seized of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not proceed further with the inquiry.
6. In compliance with the order dated 31st May, 2007 NDTV produced before the Registrar (General/Administration) of this Court, on 2nd June, 2007 six CDs. One of the CDs was said to be edited, while the remaining five were said to be unedited. The statement of Ms. Poonam Agarwal a reporter of NDTV was recorded to this effect and the CDs were placed in a sealed cover. Ms. Agarwal also stated that The NDTV news channel does not have any other material in connection with the sting operation in question. She undertook to preserve the original chips.
7. Subsequently, on 6th June, 2007 Ms. Agarwal submitted the transcripts of the six CDs. She also stated that the six CDs were prepared from four spy camera chips which were recorded on different occasions.
8. On 23rd July, 2007 Ms. Agarwal filed an affidavit (on the direction of the Court) concerning the sting or undercover operation from the stage it was conceived, attendant circumstances, details of recordings, time and place etc. The affidavit broadly states that on 20th April, 2007 NDTV had telecast a half- hour special on the BMW case and thereafter on 22nd April, 2007 one Mr. Sunil Laxman Kulkarni contacted her and told her that he had seen the half-hour programme and was impressed by it. He told her that he had some information relevant to the case and would like to meet her. She met Mr. Kulkarni the same day and again on the 23rd April, 2007 when he told her that there was a strong nexus between the prosecution and the defence in the BMW case and that he wanted to do a sting operation to make the nexus public.
9. At this stage, it may be broadly mentioned that Mr. Kulkarni claims to have witnessed an incident that occurred in the early morning of 10th January, 1999 when a BMW car allegedly driven by one Mr. Sanjeev Nanda in a drunken state caused the death of six persons. The police registered a case under Section 304 read with Sections 308 and 34 of the IPC and commenced their investigations. During the cour
M.R. Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah (1984) 2 SCC 343
Biman Bose v. State of West Bengal (2004) 13 SCC 95
V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta (1992) 4 SCC 697
Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia (2000) 2 SCC 367
Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002) 4 SCC 21
Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute (2005) 1 SCC 254
Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey (2004) 5 SCC 26
Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen 1971 (2) SCC 617
Union of India v. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882
L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation 66 (1997) DLT 618
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1 : AIR 2007 SC 590
Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374
Rachpudi Subba Rao v. Advocate General (1981) 2 SCC 577
Amrik Singh v. State 1971 (3) SCC 215
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers (2004) 9 SCC 580 : AIR 2004 SC 456
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble (2003) 7 SCC 749
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158
Harijai Singh case (1996) 6 SCC 466
Vinay Chandra Mishra case (1995) 2 SCC 584
Delhi Tamil Education Association v. J. Samimalai 97 (2002) DLT 352
Raja Ram Pal v. Honble Speaker
Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association (2005) 6 SCC 109
Surya Prakash Khatri v. Smt. Madhu Trehan 92 (2001) DLT 665
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 686
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386
Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State 2004 (72) DRJ 693
Subhash Chander v. S.M. Aggarwal 25 (1984) DLT 52
Brig. E.T. Sen v. Edatata Narayanan 5 (1969) DLT 348
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322
Ramjanam Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1956 SC 643
Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor AIR 1940 PC 176
Kehar Singh v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609
Court on its own motion v. State 2008 (100) DRJ 144
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 7 SCC 490
Banti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 1 SCC 414
N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V. Giri AIR 1971 SC 1162
Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh 1985 AIR 1986 SC 3
Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SC 1043
Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta AIR 1994 SC 1733
Jayalakshmi Jaitly v. Union of India 99 (2002) DLT 448
Amar @ Bahadur v. State 120 (2005) DLT 267
M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1 : AIR 2007 SC 590
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72
State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash (1976) 1 SCC 975
Debabrato Bandopadhyay v. State of West Bengal AIR 1969 SC 189
J.R. Parashar v. Prashant Bhushan (2001) 6 SCC 735
Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba (1991) 2 SCC 342
Harchand Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1974 SC 344
Suraj Mal v. The State AIR 1979 SC 1408
Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.