Releasing pleadings to media before they are considered by courts not acceptable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently took exception to the growing trend among lawyers and litigants to release petitions, documents, affidavits etc to the media even before they are considered by courts [Court On Its Own Motion Vs. Roop Darshan Pandey And Ors]..Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said the same could prejudice the parties and also affect the independent decision-making by the concerned 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 Court was hearing a case concerning an undated, unsigned legal notice issued by a company Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. to Hero MotoCorp Ltd., that was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by a journalist of the news platform The New Indian.The Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings in the matter after finding that false, scandalous and contemptuous remarks were made in the legal notice regarding the functioning of the registry of the High Court, allegations of forum shopping and insinuation of foul-play in mentioning matters before the Court. .The Court observed that Roop Darshan Pandey, the director of Brain Logistics, deliberately leaked the legal notice to media to harm the reputation of Hero MotoCorp.Pandey named two advocates on whose consultation the scandalous remarks were made in the legal notice. These Advocates tendered an unconditional apology to Court in which they accepted that they had made wrong allegations in the legal notice. The Court then proceeded to expound on the duties and responsibilities of advocates, journalists, media houses and parties to litigation in court cases.“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. .In the present case, the Court noted that the advocates concerned had not acted as per the rules prescribed by Bar Council of India (BCI) with respect to the duties of lawyers towards the court and their client.“Bar Council of India casts responsibility upon the Advocates to prevent their clients from acting in an illegal manner not only towards judiciary but also opposing counsel and parties. The counsels in the present case should have advised their clients with respect to the procedure of listing of cases in Delhi High Court and should not have raised such baseless allegations, functioning of the Court,” the Court noted. The Court further stated that the non-reflection of the advocates’ names and bar council registrations is also contrary to the practice directions notified by the Delhi High Court and the BCI Rules. Accordingly, the Court directed the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the two advocates. .With respect to the journalist, the Court observed that he had the duty to verify the allegations before bringing the notice in public domain. The journalist was discharged with the direction that he ought to exercise caution in future and continue his journalism with a greater sense of responsibility..As regards Pandey, the Court noted that he is a habitual offender and hence could not get away with an apology. Hence, the Bench sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 2 weeks. “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. [Read Order]