Habit Of Releasing Pleadings And Documents To The Media Before They Are Considered By The Courts Not Acceptable: Delhi HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things that while taking strong exception to the growing nefarious tendency among lawyers and litigants to release petitions, documents, affidavits etc to the media even before they are considered by the courts, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Court On Its Own Motion Vs Roop Darshan Pandey And Others in Cont.Cas. (Crl) 13/2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:337-DB that was pronounced as recently as on January 23, 2025 and conducted through hybrid mode has minced just no words whatsoever to hold in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that, “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.” We need to note that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Prathiba M Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Sharma was hearing a case concerning an undated, unsigned legal notice that was 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. It must be noted that the Delhi High 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 Delhi High Court, allegations of forum shopping and insinuation of foul-play in mentioning matters before the Court.
It merits mentioning that the Delhi High Court was unequivocal in holding that Roop Darshan Pandey, the Director of Brain Logistics, deliberately leaked the legal notice to media to harm the reputation of Hero MotoCorp. Pandey had named two advocates on whose consultation the scandalous remarks were made in the legal notice. These advocates had tendered an unconditional apology to the Court in which they accepted that they had made wrong allegations in the legal notice.
By the way, the Division Bench made it explicitly clear noting that, “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.” Notably, we see that in the present case, the Delhi High Court noted that the advocates 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. No denying it.
It was also pointed out by the Division Bench that, “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.” It was also noted 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, we see that the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the two advocates.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Prathiba M Singh for a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Sharma sets the ball in motion by first and foremost laying bare the background of the case stating in para 2 that, “The present contempt reference arises out of the order dated 28th October, 2024 passed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court in CRL.M.C. 5587/2024 titled as Vijay Srivastava & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. The said CRL.M.C. was filed by Shri Vijay Srivastava and Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. challenging the order dated 19th July, 2023 passed in Complaint Case No.187/2024 wherein the ld. Judicial Magistrate directed registration of FIR against the Petitioner. The said complaint was filed on 21st July, 2024, by the contemnor Shri Roop Darshan Pandey, who was a director of Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘BLPL’).”
As we see, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 3 stating that, “The dispute between the contesting parties emanated out of a jobs contract dated 1st October, 2001 signed with BLPL, for providing manpower services at the spare parts division of the Petitioner company, which at the relevant point of time was referred as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (‘HHML’) and now known as Hero MotoCorp Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘HML’). The said contract was terminated on 30th March, 2010, on account of relations turning sore between the parties. The said agreement dated 1st December, 2005 contained an arbitration clause 24. The same was invoked by BLPL, by issuing notice dated 27th April, 2010. The Petitioner also changed their name from Hero Honda Motors Ltd. to Hero MotoCorp Ltd sometime in the year 2011.”
Truth be told, the Division Bench then unfolds in para 4 disclosing that, “Late Hon’ble Justice H.S. Bedi (Retd.) of the Supreme Court was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties on 27th April, 2012. The ld. Sole Arbitrator had rendered the award dated 20th May, 2018, which has been challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Vide the said arbitral award ld. Arbitrator awarded to BLPL, a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- towards short payments and interest @6% p.a. from April, 2010+Rs.1,25,000/- service charge along with interest @6% p.a. from March, 2010.”
As things stands, the Division Bench points out in para 5 that, “This contractual dispute, however, has unfolded into a plethora of criminal cases between the parties. Various allegations were raised by BLPL against HML and its officials. Various FIRs were sought to be registered raising allegations related to certain documents and certain PF issues. One such criminal complaint filed by BLPL against the company is Complaint Case No.187/2024. In the said case, vide order dated 19th July, 2024, the ld. Magistrate, Karkardooma Court directed registration of FIR within three days. The said order was passed on Friday and the FIR was to be registered on Monday i.e., on 22 nd July, 2024.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 20 that, “Coming to the present contempt, even after the contempt reference was made, Mr. Pandey continued to insist on the allegations that the matter was wrongly entertained for mentioning in DB-II and has placed on record the Rosters of the Delhi High Court for the relevant period with an intention to completely scandalize the Court further. There are primarily three allegations made by BLPL and Mr. Pandey in the legal notice against the Court:
i) That the mentioning could not have been done in DB-II;
ii) That the mentioning was allowed “subject to office objections” and therefore the Registry ought to have ensured that all objections are cleared and could not have listed the matter without the clearance of all objections;
iii) That the Registry could not have listed the matter in Court No.30 by presuming that the matter was connected to CRL.M.C. 5587/2024.”
Quite forthrightly, the Division Bench points out in para 25 mandating that, “In the above affidavits it is clearly admitted by Mr. Pandey as also his counsels that the term “subject to office objections” means that the matter can be listed before the Court despite the objections. It is thus clear that the allegation made in the legal notice to the contrary, that all objections had to be removed prior to listing, was completely false to the knowledge of both the lawyers and the client. The allegation in the legal notice was clearly to scandalize the Court and the Registry as also to raise unnecessary doubts as to the functioning of the Court. Moreover, even if the allegations are not direct, allusions to wrong doing by the Court or the Registry, which is clear from the legal notice, would also not be permissible.”
Most forthrightly and so also most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 31 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “The language in the legal notice completely scandalises the Court and raises baseless allegations and aspersions against the administration of justice by the Court by raising doubts about the functioning of the Registry of this Court. In any case, after issuance of the legal notice, special and deliberate attempt has been made either by the lawyers or the litigant to get it published in online platforms. The Journalist – Mr. Atul Krishna who is present has tendered an unconditional apology. However, the fact remains that the said notice was published on the ‘X’ (former Twitter) platform of the media handle. Without any verification of facts, the notice was clearly leaked by Mr. Pandey/BLPL not only with an intent to cause damage and harm to the reputation of HML but with a clear intent to also lower the dignity of the Court amongst the public. 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.”
What is equally most significant and so also most forthright is that the Division Bench concedes in para 36 stating that, “Having heard the parties and having seen the record and also having perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents and lawyers and the Journalist, 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. Over the course of various hearings, it has become clear to the Court that while Mr. Pandey himself has become a habitual litigant indulging in various practices which would constitute abuse of process, the advice being given to him by his lawyers is also clearly far from bona fide. Mr. Pandey has categorically made a statement before the Court that the content of the legal notice were based on the advice given to him by his lawyers.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 40 that, “In this background, it deserves to be noted that, after the ld. Single Judge came to a prima facie conclusion that the notice was contemptuous, the same has been taken down from the online platforms. The Court after having heard Mr. Atul who was present in Court during all the hearings also feels that the apology tendered by him is bona fide and therefore the contempt notice against Mr. Atul Krishna is discharged with the direction that he ought to exercise caution in future and continue his journalism with a greater sense of responsibility.”
What’s more significant is that the Division Bench then notes in para 41 that, “Insofar as the two Counsels are concerned, both have not merely misadvised their client but have also expressed least remorse even during the hearings. Their legal notice did not comply with the required conditions of giving the name of the counsel, the bar council registration number, the date of the notice, the website, the name of the other lawyers working in the firm, etc., none of it is mentioned in the legal notice. Such strategies are usually adopted by lawyers in order to insulate themselves from any action while shooting in the dark and make wild allegations.”
Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 42 that, “The Bar Council of India has also prescribed certain rules with respect to the duties of the Advocates towards the Court and their Client. The said Rules are been extracted below:
“Rules on an Advocate’s Duty Towards the Court
4. Refuse to act in an illegal manner towards the opposition An advocate should refuse to act in an illegal or improper manner towards the opposing counsel or the opposing parties. He shall also use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from acting in any illegal, improper manner or use unfair practices in any mater towards the judiciary, opposing counsel or the opposing parties.
5. Refuse to represent clients who insist on unfair means An advocate shall refuse to represent any client who insists on using unfair or improper means. An advocate shall excise his own judgment in such matters. He shall not blindly follow the instructions of the client. He shall be dignified in use of his language in correspondence and during arguments in court. He shall not scandalously damage the reputation of the parties on false grounds during pleadings. He shall not use unparliamentary language during arguments in the court.””
More to the point, the Division Bench rightly points out in para 43 that, “A perusal of the above rules would shows that the 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.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench notes in para 44 that, “During the hearings in the Court also, it was clearly felt that they continued to justify their conduct rather than express any sense of remorse. The non-reflection of names of counsels, their bar council registrations is also contrary to the practice directions notified by the Delhi High Court. As per the Circular No. STBC/Cir/No.18/2006 dated 5th July, 2006, issued by the High Court of Delhi it has been made compulsory for the Advocates to mention their enrolment number on their letter heads. The said circular is extracted below:
“It has come to notice that Bar Council of India, in the year 2006, had issued a Circular No.STBC/Cir/No.18/2006 dated 5.7.2006 to all the State Bar Councils, communicating its approval to the new Rule 105A, framed by the Bar Council of Delhi, whereby it was made compulsory for the Advocates to mention enrolment number on their letter heads and vakalatnamas.
All the Officers and Dealing Assistants of the Filing Counter are requested to ensure that the Vakalatnamas, filed by the Advocates, must contain their enrolment numbers as well, in addition to other requirements of the Vakalatnama.””
To be sure, the Division Bench observes in para 45 that, “The above stated Rule 105 A has been extracted below:
Rule 105A: Every advocate shall mention his/her enrollment number on every visible representation (wherever the letter “Advocate”/“Attorney”/“Counsel” is mentioned after or before the same) including visiting card, letter head, vakalatnama etc.”
Simply put, the Division Bench then puts forth in para 46 that, “A perusal of the above stated rule shows that the enrolment number needs to be mandatorily added at all places in the letter where “Advocate”/“Attorney”/“Counsel” is mentioned. It can be seen that in the present case neither the letterhead mentions the details of the Advocate and the enrolment number. The same is also not mentioned in the end salutation. It’s a prescribed practice to write the name and enrolment number of the Advocate sending the legal notice to verify the authenticity of said notice. Moreover, legal notices are made on the letterhead of the concerned advocate/firm/chamber who is sending the notice and absence of such details questions the validity of the said notices.”
Bluntly put, the Division Bench points out clearly in para 48 that, “Under these circumstances, both the lawyers have violated the Bar Council Rules and the practice directions of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the Counsels have indulged in unprofessional conduct. The matter is accordingly referred to Bar Council of Delhi for initiating disciplinary proceedings which shall be decided in accordance with law. In addition, they shall henceforth comply with the said Rules and modify their letterheads and all other communications in accordance with the said Rules.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 49 that, “Insofar as Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey is concerned, his conduct has been totally defiant even during Court proceedings. The apology is completely conditional and the intent has been to justify all the allegations which have been made. The allegations are clearly false to the knowledge of Mr. Pandey who is a habitual litigant in the Court. The attempt of Mr. Pandey appears to be somehow continue to harass the company HML, its officials and its Counsels while making wild allegations against them. Mr. Pandey has also not spared the Court or the Registry of this Court when clearly there was no fault of the Registry of the Delhi High Court in the clearing of the matter for listing and also listing of the matter on an urgent basis.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench then notes in para 55 that, “Considering the settled law, as contained in the above judgments, there is no doubt that Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey is liable to be punished for Contempt of Court. His frivolous allegations against the Court as also the Registry of the Delhi High Court with respect to listing matters is completely baseless. Such allegations if ignored, would over a period of time lead to erosion of faith in the well-established and fair systems and procedures of the Court. The clear allusions are that there was some wrong-doing, when clearly no such needle of suspicion could have been raised. Under these circumstances, Mr. Pandey is held guilty of criminal contempt as per Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench points out in para 56 that, “This is the second instance when allegations of contempt have been raised against Mr. Pandey. Earlier, on 10th February, 2016, Mr. Pandey had filed a complaint to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice, against the Senior Advocate representing HML and one of the Judges of this Court alleging that they are “known to each other”, amongst other allegations. The said complaint requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of this Court for a fair enquiry against such conspiracies. Thereafter several applications were filed against Mr. Roop Darshan Pandey in CRL.MC.2451/2013 titled Hero Motocorp Ltd. & Anr v. State & Anr. And other connected matters with respect to the said complaint on 4th March, 2017.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench holds in para 59 that, “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.”
Furthermore, the Division Bench directs in para 60 that, “It is directed that the police authorities shall take the Contemnor into custody from the Court itself and the Contemnor be sent to Jail.”
In addition, the Division Bench directs in para 61 that, “The Contempt Reference is accordingly disposed of in these terms.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding aptly in para 62 that, “A copy of this judgment be given Dasti to ld. Counsels for the parties under the signatures of Court Master.”
Author Bio
