Releasing Documents To Media Before Court's Consideration Not Acceptable: Delhi High Court In Criminal Contempt Case

While dealing with a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has observed that releasing documents and pleadings to media even before the Courts have considered them is not acceptable. “The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is also not acceptable as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by Courts,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said. About the ControversyThe Bench was dealing with a criminal contempt proceedings initiated against Roop Darshan Pandey (Director of M/s Brains Logistics Private Limited), media platform The New Indian and its journalist Atul Krishna. This was pursuant to an order passed by the single judge who issued legal notices to the media outlet and its journalist over publication of a news article based on a legal notice prima facie carrying contemptuous and scandalous allegations against the judiciary and the Registry of the High Court. The allegations were regarding listing of matters in the High Court.The article was published by The New Indian on September 23 last year titled “Hero MotoCorp under lens over alleged court manipulation now.” Krishna was the author of the article. Before the single judge, Hero MotoCorp Limited sought to bring on record an “undated legal notice” issued on behalf of M/s Brains Logistics Private Limited. It was claimed that the legal notice did not contain the name of any advocate or his enrolment number or stamp. Hero MotoCorp alleged that the legal notice contained malicious and contemptuous allegations against the High Court, cast aspersions on its Registry as well as a Division Bench and Predecessor Bench.Hero MotoCorp had also said that notices exchanged between the parties to litigation were private documents and publishing the same on social media or sending it for publication in the public domain is an act towards scandalising the judiciary and lowering the dignity of the Delhi High Court.Contempt Proceedings before Division BenchThe Court observed that the language in the legal notice completely scandalised the Court and raised baseless allegations and aspersions against the administration of justice by the Court by raising doubts about the functioning of the Registry.Even though the journalist had tendered an unconditional apology, the Bench noted that the legal notice was published on X. It said that without any verification of facts, the notice was clearly leaked by Pandey or BLPL not only with an intent to cause damage and harm to the reputation of Hero MotoCorp but also with a clear intent to also lower the dignity of the Court amongst the public.Noting that the apology tendered by the journalist was bona fide, the Court discharged the contempt notice against him with the direction that he ought to exercise caution in future and continue his journalism with a greater sense of responsibility.Furthermore, the Bench said that it was at pains to observe that every lawyer and litigant who is before the Court has a responsibility to ensure that any conduct which lowers the faith in the judicial system ought not to be resorted to. It noted that Pandey's two lawyers had not merely misadvised him but also expressed least remorse even during the hearings. Furthermore, the Court said that the lawyers should have advised their clients with respect to the procedure of listing of cases in Delhi High Court and should not have raised baseless allegations on functioning of the Court.Noting that the legal notice in question did not mention details like name of the counsel, bar council registration number, date of the notice, name of the other lawyers working in the firm etc, the Court said:“Under these circumstances, both the lawyers have violated the Bar Council Rules and the practice directions of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the Counsels have indulged in unprofessional conduct. The matter is accordingly referred to Bar Council of Delhi for initiating disciplinary proceedings which shall be decided in accordance with law. In addition, they shall henceforth comply with the said Rules and modify their letterheads and all other communications in accordance with the said Rules.”The Court held that Roop Darshan Pandey was liable to be punished for Contempt of Court and that his frivolous allegations against the Court as also the Registry with respect to listing matters was completely baseless. The Court sentenced Pandey to two weeks of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000.Such allegations if ignored, would over a period of time lead to erosion of faith in the well-established and fair systems and procedures of the Court, it said. Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. ROOP DARSHAN PANDEY AND ORS.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 89Click here to read order

Releasing Documents To Media Before Court's Consideration Not Acceptable: Delhi High Court In Criminal Contempt Case

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags