The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised lawyers and litigants for disclosing petitions, documents, and affidavits to the media before the court’s consideration, emphasising that such actions may prejudice the parties and interfere with the court’s independent decision-making.
This statement was made by a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma during the hearing of a case involving an undated, unsigned legal notice issued by Brain Logistics Private Limited to Hero MotoCorp Limited, which was subsequently shared on X (formerly Twitter) by a journalist from The New Indian.
The Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings after it found that the legal notice contained false and defamatory statements, including allegations of forum shopping and improper conduct regarding the Registry’s operations. It was noted that Roop Darshan Pandey, Director of Brain Logistics, deliberately leaked the notice to the media to tarnish the reputation of Hero MotoCorp.
Pandey named two advocates whose advice allegedly contributed to the offensive remarks in the notice. These lawyers offered an unconditional apology, admitting that the allegations were baseless.
The High Court emphasised the responsibility of lawyers, litigants, journalists, and media houses to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. It underscored that any action undermining public faith in the judiciary should be avoided. The Bench pointed out that the lawyers involved in this case had failed to comply with the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) rules, which require lawyers to prevent their clients from making illegal or defamatory claims against the judiciary or opposing parties.
The Court also criticised the failure to include the lawyers’ names and BCI registration details in the notice, contrary to the established guidelines, and instructed the Bar Council of Delhi to take disciplinary action against the two lawyers.
Regarding the journalist, the Court noted that it was his responsibility to verify the allegations before publicizing them. While the journalist was discharged, the Court advised him to exercise greater caution and uphold a higher standard of responsibility in his reporting.
Finally, the Court sentenced Pandey, identified as a habitual offender, to two weeks of simple imprisonment.
