The Delhi High Court has expressed strong disapproval of releasing legal documents and pleadings to the media before the judiciary has had an opportunity to consider them, emphasizing that such actions can prejudice parties and undermine judicial independence.

“The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is not acceptable, as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by Courts,” a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed.

Contempt Proceedings Overview

The Court was hearing criminal contempt proceedings against Roop Darshan Pandey, Director of M/s Brains Logistics Private Limited (BLPL), media platform The New Indian, and its journalist Atul Krishna. The proceedings were initiated following a news article published on September 23, 2023, titled “Hero MotoCorp under lens over alleged court manipulation now.”

The article was based on a legal notice containing allegedly contemptuous and scandalous allegations against the Delhi High Court, its Registry, and certain benches. Hero MotoCorp Limited, a party in the underlying litigation, contended that the notice included baseless claims and violated court decorum by being published without proper verification.

Court Findings

The Court found that the legal notice raised unfounded allegations against the judiciary and its Registry, amounting to scandalizing the Court and diminishing its dignity.

While the journalist tendered an unconditional apology, which the Court accepted as bona fide, it noted that the legal notice had been shared on social media and leaked with apparent intent to damage Hero MotoCorp’s reputation and undermine the Court’s integrity. The Court discharged the contempt notice against the journalist, directing him to exercise greater caution and responsibility in future reporting.

Lawyers Referred for Disciplinary Action

The Court also criticized Pandey’s two lawyers for failing to provide proper counsel and for showing a lack of remorse during hearings. It observed that the legal notice lacked essential details, such as the name of the counsel, bar registration number, and date, which violated Bar Council Rules and High Court practice directions.

“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 Bench said. The matter was referred to the Bar Council of Delhi for initiating disciplinary proceedings.

"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 said.

Sentencing

The Court held Pandey liable for contempt of court, sentencing him to two weeks of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹2,000. It remarked that ignoring such baseless allegations could erode public faith in the judiciary over time.

“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 Bench stated.

Conclusion

"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. It is directed that the police authorities shall take the Contemnor into custody from the Court itself and the Contemnor be sent to Jail. The Contempt Reference is accordingly disposed of in these terms," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Court on its own motion v. Roop Darshan Pandey & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 337-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Dayan Krishnan, Maninder Singh, Advocates Rishi Agrawala, Rahul Malhotra, Devika Mohan, Ankit Banati, Abhishek Anand, Manavi Agarwal, Kashish Mathur, Minal Kaushik, Sanjana Nair, Rishu Kant Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Anjali Sisodia, Deepak Dahiya, Advait Ghosh

Click here to read/download the Judgment