Case: R.K. Anand vs.

Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106

Forum: Supreme Court of India

Coram: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi and Aftab Alam, JJ.

Decision Date: July 29, 2009

Facts: The case stemmed from the Sanjeev Nanda hit and run case which resulted in the
death of 6 people in Delhi. Sunil Kulkarni was summoned by the Delhi High Court to give
his testimony as a court witness. In the course of which, NDTV telecasted a sting operation
carried out by it which captured a meeting between Sunil Kulkarni (acting as the mole), IU
Khan, the Special Public Prosecutor and RK Anand, the Senior Defence Counsel and two
others. During this meeting, Sunil Kulkarni sought a sum of money to testify in favour of the
defence.

Some of the pertinent facts from the hit and run case are also pertinent to understand the
backdrop of the contempt case:

Sunil Kulkarni: He was a key prosecution witness as he claimed to be an eye witness to the
accident. However, he was dropped by the prosecution as its witness because of his
subsequent uncooperative conduct. He stated that his earlier statements were made under
police coercion, refused to give correct contact details and otherwise co-operate with the
police. He was also found to be in contact with the defence counsel R.K. Anand and his
associate as well as Suresh Nanda. The two other key prosecution witnesses also turned
hostile. The Court noted that only Sunil Kulkarni’s statement was recorded under Section 164
CrPC and he was summoned to appear before the Court as the Court believed his evidence
was essential. Further, investigation by NDTV also revealed that R.K. Anand and Sunil
Kulkarni knew each other from around 7 years ago where the latter stayed at R.K. Anand’s
residence in Shimla and carried out certain fraudulent activities inviting police action against
him.

Procedural History: Appalled by the revelations of the sting operation, the Delhi High Court
suo motu initiated a proceeding and after examining the materials available with NDTV,
issued notices to IU Khan and RK Anand himself and his associate, Bhagwan Sharma to
show cause why they should not be punished for criminal contempt of court. Bhagwan
Sharma was acquitted but the Court condemned his role. The Court found IU Khan and RK
Anand guilty of contempt and prescribed the following punishment to both of them:

a. Prohibited them from appearing the Delhi High Court and the courts subordinate to it for
a period of four months while allowing them to carry on their other professional work
b. The Court held that R.K. Anand and IU Khan had forfeited their right to be designated as
Senior Advocates and recommended the Full Court to divest them of the honour.
c. Fine of INR 2000 each.

R.K. Anand and IU Khan filed appeals against this judgment of the Delhi High Court before
the Supreme Court.

Issue:

The following issues were framed by the Court:

1. Whether the conviction of the two appellants for committing criminal contempt of court is
justified and sustainable?
2. Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court in the contempt proceedings was fair
and reasonable, causing no prejudice to the two appellants?
3. 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?
4. 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?

Apart from the above, some other important issues arise from the facts of the case that need
to be addressed by us. These are:

5. The role of NDTV in carrying out sting operations and telecasting the programme based
on the sting materials in regard to a criminal trial that was going on before the court.
6. The declining professional standards among lawyers, and
7. The root-cause behind the whole affair; the way the BMW trial was allowed to go
directionless

Rule: clauses (ii) & (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Analysis:

Factors which the Court weighed against the contemnors:

a. Lack of apology: No apology was tendered nor did they express regret or contrition
for their acts. Rather the contemnors challenged the authenticity and admissibility of
the recordings of the sting operation. It was contended on behalf of IU Khan that his
conduct was interpreted out of context. R. K. Anand also alleged that NDTV itself
had committed contempt of court. The Court has rightly taken the approach that even
if there was any legal challenge to the stings or the telecast, that would not absolve the
contemnors of the grave charge of suborning a witness in a criminal trial. Further, the
Court was satisfied that the recordings of the stings on the microchips and their
reproduction on the CDs were genuine and unimpeachable. Hence, those materials
could be taken in evidence and relied on.

b. Recordings of the sting operations: Upon perusal of the recordings, the Court noted
that R.K. Anand was indeed privy to the negotiations for Sunil Kulkarni’s sell out. He
was actively involved in negotiating and did not object to the same.

c. Response to NDTV anchors questions during the expose programme: R.K. Anand did
not deny meeting Sunil Kulkarni at the airport. Instead he unsuccessfully tried to
justify his statement in respect to demanding higher sum of money for Sunil
Kulkarni’s sell out as a joke. Thus, he did not deny his statement in the recordings. He
flatly denied any second meeting with Sunil Kulkarni in his car.

d. Failure to pursue legal action against NDTV: RK Anand had sent a legal notice to
NDTV threatening legal actions against them and demanding a huge sum as
compensation. However, upon receiving a reply from NDTV, he didn't pursue the
matter any further. Upon viewing the telecast, the Court was of the view that R.K.
Anand appeared to be quite stunned at being caught on the camera in the wrong act,
rather than outraged at any false accusations levelled against him.

e. Admission made in reply affidavit: In his reply affidavit in response to the notice
issued by the Court in October 2007, R.K. Anand expressly admitted, on oath,
 meeting Sunil Kulkarni in his car negating his denial of any such meeting in the live
interview with NDTV.

f. Placing reliance on sting recordings to attempt to prove innocence: The Court noted
the inconsistency of R.K. Anand’s stance in asserting that the recordings were not
authentic and in the same breath using isolated sentences from the recordings to claim
innocence.

g. Standard of proof in a contempt proceeding: The Court acknowledged that the

standard of proof in a contempt proceedings is no less rigorous than a criminal trial.
However, the manner of proof for the two proceedings is different as the proceeding
of contempt of court is sui generis, not being strictly controlled by the provisions of
the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act. The principles of natural justice apply to the
contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. Thus, the Court is
bound to follow fair and objective procedure causing no prejudice to the person facing
the charge of contempt of court and allow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend
himself/herself.1

1
In Re Vinay Mishra 1995CriLJ3994 , Daroga Singh and Ors. v. B.K. Pandey 2004CriLJ2084