Contempt, criminal contempt, media trial, collusion, professional ethics. Case Study - RK Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court. - BMW Case.

1. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS- CASE
STUDY.
R.K.Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court. [(2009) 8 SCC
106]
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Aftab Alam.
Treesa Sunil

2. SCOPE OF THE CASE:
A. Criminal Contempt.
B. High Court’s power to prohibit advocates from appearing before
it.
C. Procedures adopted by High Courts.
D. Professional standards of a lawyer.
E. Media Trial and Sub Judice.

3. BACKGROUND:
● The case of R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court is a fall out
from yet another case, famously known as the BMW case.
● In this case,
○ R.K. Anand -Defence counsel.
○ I U Khan- Special Public Prosecutor.
○ Sanjeev Nanda- Accused.
○ Sunil Kulkarni- Prime Witness.

4. FACTS:
➔ On January 10, 1999 in Delhi, a speeding car crashed through a police check post and
crushed to death six people, including three policemen. The main accused was Sanjeev
Nanda coming from a very wealthy business family. He was drunk driving a black BMW at
a very high speed.
➔ Five days after the accident, on January 15, 1999 one Sunil Kulkarni contacted the Joint
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. On the
same day his statement was recorded by the police under section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). On January 21, 1999 Kulkarni's statement was recorded before
a magistrate under section 164 of CrPC.
➔ Kulkarni also identified Sanjeev Nanda as the driver of the car causing the accident, when
the accused was brought to court.

5. ➔ The valuable witness, Kulkarni was dropped by the prosecution in the early days of trial.
➔ After 8 years, Kulkarni was suo moto (u/s 311 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 programme on May 30, 2007 in which one
Sunil Kulkarni was shown meeting with IU Khan, the Special Public Prosecutor and
RK Anand, the Senior Defence Counsel (and two others) and negotiating for his sell
out in favour of the defence for a very high price.
➔ The telecast came a few weeks after the court order and even as his evidence in the trial was
going on.

6. ➔ Shocked by the programme the Delhi High Court suo moto initiated a proceeding (Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.796 of 2007). It called for from the news channel all the materials on
which the telecast was based, and after examining those materials issued show cause
notices 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.
➔ On considering their show cause and after hearing the parties the High Court found and held
that their acts squarely fell within the definition of contempt under clauses (ii) & (iii) of
section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. ➔ The court held them guilty of committing contempt of Court and in exercised its power
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and prohibited them, by way of punishment,
from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the courts subordinate to it for a period of four
months from the date of the judgment.
➔ It, however, left them free to carry on their other professional work, e. g., `consultations,
advises, 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 honour. In addition to this the High Court also sentenced them to fine of
rupees two thousand each.

8. Provisions of law applied:
Section 2(c) in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
“criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or
by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding;or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;

9. Provisions of law applied:
Article 215 in The Constitution Of India
215. High Courts to be courts of record. Every High Court shall be a court of record and
shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of
itself.
This article is Sui Generis- i.e. a form of legal protection that exists outside typical legal
protections -- that is, something that is unique or different.
The provisions of CrPC and Evidence laws need not be applied in this case. Only principles of
natural justice applicable.
Eg:- Contempt jurisdiction of a court is sui generis.

10. R.K Anand files appeal.
➔ The matter was brought to Supreme Court in appeal under section 19 (1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act ,1971.
➔ The Court by judgment and order dated July 29, 2009 (R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi
High) [(2009) 8 SCC 106] affirmed the finding of the High Court as to the guilt of the
contemnor.
➔ Also, the Court took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
punishment given to the contemnor was wholly inadequate.
➔ Court directed for issuing a notice of enhancement of punishment to him and directing him
to file a show cause within eight weeks from the date of service of the notice.

11. Prohibition against appearing in courts and procedures adopted by High Court:
❖ Issue was raised as the High Court prohibited Anand and IU Khan from practicing in
the HC or in the Subordinate Courts for a period of 4 months.
❖ High Court’s power to do so was questioned.
❖ The provisions involved were,
➢ Section 34 in The Advocates Act, 1961- Power of High Courts to make rules subject
to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice.
➢ Article 215- Sui Generis.
❖ Directions were given to HCs not having framed rules under S.34 to frame rules within 4
months. The rules should indicate need for specific notice to be issued when punishment of
debarring an Advocate from practice be imposed.

12. Cases related to and relied upon by the SC :
● Supreme Court Bar Association V. Union Of India, 1998 SC-
The court do not have power to debar a person from appearing. This
power is only with Bar Council.
● Ex Capt. Harish Uppal V. Union Of India, 2002 SC - The court do
not have a right but it is an obligation cast upon it to protect itself and
purity of proceedings from being polluted in any way.

13. Professional standards of lawyers:
Grave concerns and dismay was expressed on the decline of ethical and
professional standards amongst lawyers. It was said that the Bar Council of India
and the Bar Councils of different states cannot escape their responsibility in this
regard.

14. Media trial:
❖ Issue was raised as to the role of media in the case and sub- judice rule which states that
something under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion
elsewhere.
❖ It was held as per Section 3 of The Contempt of Courts Act that innocent publication and
distribution of matter is not contempt. The larger part played by it has served the good of
society.
❖ The acts of NDTV cannot be viewed as trial. It has only just aired the conspiracy. The court
however also said that media has to reconcile its business interests with higher standards of
professionalism.

15. FINAL STATUS:
● Upon several matters considered, R.K. Anand was required to follow the following orders of
the SC:
○ In terms of his undertaking, the contemnor shall not do any kind of professional
work charging any fees or for any personal considerations for one year .
○ At the end of one year it will be open to the contemnor to resume his private law
practice.
○ He shall not leave any case assigned to him by the Legal Services Authority
incomplete. He shall continue to do those cases, free of cost, till they come to a
close.
○ shall pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) through a demand
draft to the Bar Council of India within specified time.

16. THANK YOU.