CASE COMMENTARY ON ‘State Tr.P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda’ famously known as ‘Delhi BMW Hit & Run Case’

Authored By

Kum. Shaik Salma

Law Student,

Sastra Deemed University,

     mailto:salmahoney.004@gmail.com

TABLE OF CONTENT

• FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
• ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
• ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
• CITATIONS
• INTERPRETATIONS BY THE COURT
• VERDICT
• CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE CASE

FACTS OF THE CASE

      On January 10, 1999, in Delhi, the defendant, Sanjiv Nanda, was driving a BMW car while intoxicated and at high speed, crushed to death six men including 3 policemen at the check post. Five days after the accident, on January 15, 1999, Sunil Kulkarni contacted the joint commissioner of the police, Delhi, and claimed to be an eyewitness. On the same day, his statement was recorded by the police under section 161 of the CRPC.  Under section 164 of Crpc  Mr. Kulkarni’s statement was recorded before a magistrate. When the accused was brought to court, Kulkarni also identified Sanjeev Nanda as the driver of the car causing the accident.  after 8 years, Kulkarni was suo moto under section 311 of CRPC, summoned again by the court to give his testimony as a witness. it was in this background that a well-known English language news channel called New Delhi Television (ndtv) telecast a program on May 30, 2007, in which one Sunil Kulkarni was showing a meeting with IU Khan the special public prosecutor, and RK Anand the senior defense counsel and negotiating for his sell out in favor of the defense for a very high price. the Delhi High Court suo moto initiated a proceeding (writ petition). it is called the news channel all the materials on which the telecast was based, and after examining those materials issued shows cause notice to RK Anand, IU Khan, and Bhagwan Sharma an associate advocate with RK 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.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the procedure adopted by the high court in the contempt proceeding was fair and reasonable, causing no prejudice to the two appellants?

2. Whether is it was open to the high court to prohibit the appellants from appearing before the HC and the courts subordinate to it for a specified period as one of the punishments for criminal contempt of court?

3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishments awarded to the appellants could be said to be adequate and proportional to their misdeeds.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

     The petitioner R.K.Anand argued that criminal contempt of court cases are quasi-criminal and for a case of this kind the evidence adduced should be of the same level as that of a criminal trial. In this case, the evidence produced is sting tapes which are recordings made by NDTV and telecasted on 30th May 2007. In fact. It is the NDTV that has to be charged with criminal contempt as they do not follow the sub-judice rule. The matter under the consideration of judicial proceedings should not be intervened by the media. The courts also should not wholly rely on the evidence from the media as they contain opinions of people that will mislead the court. He also argued that the courts should lay down certain guidelines against the secret and sting operations of the media.

     Moreover, the evidence adduced before the court is vulnerable to being tampered with and they are only the reproduction of original recordings which is also sting. In the high court, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine Mr. Kulkarni and had not produced formal evidence of electronic materials. In contempt proceedings, the courts are bound to give punishment according to the Contempt of Court Act, of 1971. But in the case of professional misconduct, according to the Advocates Act, the bar council is the sole authority to inflict punishment. Under Article 215, the High Court by exercising its power cannot innovate a new kind of punishment like debarring the advocate to appear before the court. Even if the high court has the power to debar an advocate from appearing before the court under Sec 34 of the Advocates Act, the Delhi High Court has not framed any rules under Sec 34 of the Advocates Act. So, the penalty imposed by the court does not have any legal sanction.

The Hon’ble High Court debarred the petitioner to practice before the court without giving any notice to him as required under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act,1971. Also, the court gave its verdict by solely relying upon the electronic evidence and not checking the trustworthiness of the evidence adduced.

ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT

The petitioner even though accused the NDTV platform of contempt, didn’t file any application for initiating proceedings against it but wanted the court to take suo-moto action against it.

When it comes to a case of contempt proceedings, the courts need not apply the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973, and the Indian Evidence Act,1872. But, it has to adhere to the principles of natural justice strictly and it can devise its own procedures to proceed with the case.

With regard to this principle, the high court was right in its verdict.

The court found that the electronic evidence adduced ie., The sting recordings were true and genuine. It was also observed from the cross-examination of Poonam Agarwal and other findings, that the original copies of the recordings were kept safe and there was no tampering happened to the evidence adduced.

The Hon’ble High Court from the above findings found r.k.anand and iu khan were guilty of contempt charges and professional misconduct charges against them and inflicted the punishment.

Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court rightly found the petitioners guilty of contempt under sec 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 and under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court exercised its power and debarred the petitioner to appear before the Delhi high court and courts subordinate to it for a period of 4 months.

CITATION

In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Uoi, it was held that the court does not have the power to debar a person from appearing. This power is only with the bar council.

In Ex capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, the court does not have the right but has the obligation to protect itself and the purity of the court proceedings from being polluted in any way.  

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the high court to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the HC and the courts subordinate to it.

When a lawbreaker's conduct or actions are considered to be a real and imminent threat to the purity of the court proceedings, to any court’s functioning apart from consulting a substantive offense and contempt of the court and the professional misconduct, then the court does not only have the right but also have the obligation to protect itself and also to protect the purity of the court proceedings from being polluted and to end bar the lawbreakers from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time. 

 JUDGEMENT

The High Court of Delhi held them guilty of committing contempt of the court and in the exercise of its powers under Article 215 of the constitution and prohibited them, by way of punishment, from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the court subordinate to it for a period of four months from the date of the judgment.

It, however, left them free to carry on their professional work e.g, consultations, advice, conferences, opinion, etc. it also held that RK Anand and IU Khan had forfeited their right to be designated as senior advocates and recommended to the full court to divest them of the honor. in addition to this high court also sentenced them to a fine of rupees two thousand each.

Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Anand on the same charge by the Delhi High Court.

CRITICAL COMMENT ON THE CASE

    After observing the aforementioned verdict and reasons for the same, I hereby agree with the judgment pronounced by the court. while the decision is to be agreed on, the fact that they were solely based on the electronic evidence, i.e. the tape recordings, is a notable issue. though evidence and arguments to justify that the evidence was not tampered with, further solid, physical evidence to prove the accusations would have made the case stronger. As far as the decision is concerned, I completely agree with the observations of the Hon'ble Court. no one is above the law and no one is allowed to interfere with the proceedings of the court, not the council, not parties. anyone who desires to influence the decisions should meet the charges accordingly.

     The forever-loved, Martin Luther King Jr. once said that injustice anywhere is a threat the justice everywhere. hence justice is to be provided for everyone for a healthy society and anyone who interferes in it should be held liable accordingly.