The Delhi High Court recently expressed concern over the increasing practice of lawyers and litigants sharing petitions, documents, and affidavits with the media before these are reviewed by the courts.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that such practices could prejudice the parties involved and potentially interfere with the independent decision-making of the court.
“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,” the Court stated.
The Delhi High Court was hearing a case involving an undated and unsigned legal notice issued by Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. to Hero MotoCorp Ltd., which had been shared on X (formerly Twitter) by a journalist from The New Indian news platform.
The Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings after identifying false, scandalous, and contemptuous statements in the legal notice. These included allegations regarding the functioning of the High Court registry, claims of forum shopping, and insinuations of foul play in the allocation of cases.
It was observed that Roop Darshan Pandey, the director of Brain Logistics, had intentionally leaked the legal notice to the media to damage the reputation of Hero MotoCorp.
Pandey named two advocates whose advice had led to the inclusion of the scandalous statements in the notice. These advocates tendered unconditional apologies, admitting their error in making the allegations.
The Court then elaborated on the duties and responsibilities of advocates, journalists, media outlets, and litigants in ensuring the integrity of legal proceedings.
“This Court is 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 stated.
The Court further noted that the omission of the advocates’ names and their Bar Council registration numbers violated both the Delhi High Court's practice directions and the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. Consequently, it directed the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the two advocates.
Regarding the journalist, the Court observed that he had a duty to verify the allegations before making the legal notice public. While he was discharged, the Court emphasized that he must exercise greater caution in the future and pursue journalism with a heightened sense of responsibility.
As for Roop Darshan Pandey, the Court remarked that he is a habitual offender and could not be absolved merely by an apology. Accordingly, the Bench sentenced him to two weeks of simple imprisonment.
“It is clear from the above order that Mr. Pandey is in the habit of making allegations against Courts, judges and counsels. The offending conduct is therefore not an inadvertent error or by mistaken advice. It is done with deliberate and with ulterior motives. The apology is thus not bonafide. Mr. Pandey is accordingly sentenced to two weeks of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 07 days,” the Court directed.
Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Dayan Krishnan and Maninder Singh, with advocates Rishi Agrawala, Rahul Malhotra, Devika Mohan, Ankit Banati, Abhishek Anand, Manavi Agarwal, Kashish Mathur, Minal Kaushik, Sanjana Nair and Rishu Kant Sharma for Vijay Srivastava appeared for Hero MotoCorp.
Roop Darshan Pandey appeared in person.
Anjali Sisodia, Deepak Dahiya and Advait Ghosh appeared for the other contemnors.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy