R K ANAND Vs. REGISTRAR DELHI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a fall out from a criminal trial arising from a hit and run accident on a cold winter morning in Delhi in which a car travelling at reckless speed crashed through a police check post and crushed to death six people, including three policemen. Facing the trial, as the main accused, was a young person called Sanjeev Nanda coming from a very wealthy business family. According to the prosecution, the accident was caused by Sanjeev Nanda who, in an inebriated state, was driving a black BMW car at very high speed. The trial, commonly called as the BMW case, was meandering endlessly even after eight years of the accident and in the year 2007, it was not proceeding very satisfactorily at all from the point of view of the prosecution. The status of the main accused coupled with the flip flop of the prosecution witnesses evoked considerable media attention and public interest. To the people who watch TV and read newspapers it was yet another case that was destined to end up in a fiasco. It was in this background that a well known English language news channel called New Delhi Television (NDTV) telecast a programme on May 30, 2007 in which one Sunil Kulkarni was shown meeting with I. U. Khan, the Special Public Prosecutor and R. K. Anand, the Senior Defence Counsel (and two others) and negotiating for his sell out in favour of the defence for a very high price. Kulkarni was at one time considered the most valuable witness for the prosecution but afterwards, at an early stage in the trial, he was dropped by the prosecution as one of its witnesses. Nearly eight years later, the trial Court had summoned him to appear and give his testimony as a Court witness. The telecast came a few weeks after the Court order and even as his evidence in the trial was going on. According to NDTV, the programme was based on a clandestine operation carried out by means of a concealed camera with Kulkarni acting as the mole. What appeared in the telecast was outrageous and tended to confirm the cynical but widely held belief that in this country the rich and the mighty enjoyed some kind of corrupt and extra-constitutional immunity that put them beyond the reach of the criminal justice system. Shocked by the programme the Delhi High Court suo motu initiated a proceeding (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 796 of 2007). It called for from the news channel all the materials on which the telecast was based and after examining those materials issued show cause notices to R. K. Anand, I. U. Khan and Bhagwan Sharma, an associate advocate with R. K. Anand why they should not be convicted and punished for committing criminal contempt of Court as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. (In the sting operations there was another person called Lovely who was apparently sent to meet Kulkarni as an emissary of R. K. Anand. But he died in a freak accident even before the stage of issuance of notice in the proceeding before the High Court). On considering their show cause and after hearing the parties the High Court expressed its displeasure over the role of Bhagwan Sharma but acquitted him of the charge of contempt of Court. As regards R. K. Anand and I. U. Khan, however, the High Court found and held that their acts squarely fell within the definition of contempt under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It, accordingly, held them guilty of committing contempt of Court vide judgment and order dated August 21, 2008 and in exercise of power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India prohibited them, by way of punishment, from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of four months from the date of the judgment. It, however, left them free to carry on their other professional work, e. g., consultations, advises, conferences, opinion etc. It also held that R. K. Anand and I. U .Khan had forfeited their right to be designated as Senior Advocates and recommended to the Full Court to divest them of the honour. In addition to this the High Court also sentenced them to fine of rupees two thousand each.

(2.) These two appeals by R. K. Anand and I. U. Khan respectively are filed under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act against the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court. THE CONTEXT :

(3.) Before proceeding to examine the different issues arising in the case it is necessary to first know the context in which the whole sordid episode took place. It will be, therefore, useful to put together the basic facts and circumstances of the case at one place. The occurence in which six people lost their lives was reconstructed by the prosecution on the basis of police investigation as follows : The crime, the Police investigation and proceedings before the trial Court :