2009 (7) TMI 1231 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the conviction of the two appellants for committing criminal contempt of court is justified and sustainable? Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court in the contempt proceedings was fair and reasonable causing no prejudice to the two appellants? Whether it was open to the High Court to prohibit the appellants from appearing before the High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to it for a specified period as one of the punishments for criminal contempt of court? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishments awarded to the appellants can be said to be adequate and commensurate to their misdeeds?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction for criminal contempt.
2. Fairness and reasonableness of High Court's procedure.
3. High Court's authority to prohibit appellants from appearing in court.
4. Adequacy of the punishment awarded.
5. Role of NDTV in sting operations and telecasting the program.
6. Declining professional standards among lawyers.
7. Handling of the BMW trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction for Criminal Contempt:
The High Court convicted RK Anand and IU Khan for criminal contempt based on sting operations aired by NDTV, showing attempts to suborn a witness in the BMW trial. RK Anand was found guilty of attempting to influence witness Sunil Kulkarni, while IU Khan's conduct was deemed inappropriate for a prosecutor. The Supreme Court upheld RK Anand's conviction but set aside IU Khan's conviction, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

2. Fairness and Reasonableness of High Court's Procedure:
The High Court's procedure was questioned for not taking the original sting recordings into its custody and for relying on copies provided by NDTV. The Supreme Court found no lapse in the High Court's approach, emphasizing that the correctness of the sting recordings was never in doubt or dispute. RK Anand's changing stand and admissions regarding the sting recordings negated the need for formal proof of authenticity.

3. High Court's Authority to Prohibit Appellants from Appearing in Court:
The High Court prohibited RK Anand and IU Khan from appearing before it and subordinate courts for four months. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the authority to regulate the conduct of advocates appearing before it, such a prohibition should be preceded by a specific notice to the contemnor. The Supreme Court directed High Courts to frame rules under section 34 of the Advocates Act to address such issues.

4. Adequacy of the Punishment Awarded:
The Supreme Court found the punishment given to RK Anand by the High Court to be nominal and proposed issuing a notice for enhancement of punishment. The court observed that RK Anand's conduct before the High Court was defiant, and he attempted to obstruct the proceedings.

5. Role of NDTV in Sting Operations and Telecasting the Program:
NDTV's sting operations and the subsequent telecast were criticized for lacking full disclosure and for certain inaccuracies and sensationalism in the program. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the sting operations served an important public cause by exposing attempts to subvert the BMW trial. The court emphasized the need for media to maintain higher standards of professionalism and transparency.

6. Declining Professional Standards Among Lawyers:
The conduct of RK Anand and IU Khan highlighted the decline in ethical and professional standards among lawyers. The Supreme Court expressed concern over this trend and emphasized the need for the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to enforce high professional standards and discipline among lawyers.

7. Handling of the BMW Trial:
The Supreme Court criticized the passive attitude of the High Court in allowing the BMW trial to be interfered with repeatedly. The court stressed the need for High Courts to take a more proactive role in monitoring and protecting criminal trials from external interferences. The court suggested measures such as assigning trials to independent judicial officers, ensuring witness protection, and directing speedy trial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld RK Anand's conviction for criminal contempt, set aside IU Khan's conviction, and directed High Courts to frame rules under section 34 of the Advocates Act. The court emphasized the need for higher professional standards among lawyers and a more proactive role for High Courts in protecting criminal trials. NDTV's sting operations were recognized for serving a public cause, but the court highlighted the need for greater transparency and accuracy in media reporting.