The Delhi High Court has expressed its strong displeasure against lawyers and litigants for releasing petitions, documents and affidavits to the media even before the courts could consider them.
The Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that such an action could prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by courts.
The High Court made these observations while hearing a case concerning an undated, unsigned legal notice issued by a company Brain Logistics Private Limited to Hero MotoCorp Limited. The notice was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by a journalist of the news platform The New Indian.
The Bench 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 High Court, allegations of forum shopping and insinuation of foul-play in mentioning matters before the Court.
It observed that Roop Darshan Pandey, Director of Brain Logistics, deliberately leaked the legal notice to media to harm the reputation of Hero MotoCorp.
Pandey named two Advocates on whose consultation the scandalous remarks were made in the legal notice. The lawyers tendered an unconditional apology to the Court in which they accepted that they had made wrong allegations in the legal notice.
Speaking about the duties and responsibilities of Advocates, journalists, media houses and parties to litigation in court cases, the High Court observed that every lawyer and litigant before the Court had a responsibility to ensure that any conduct which lowered the faith in the judicial system ought not to be resorted to.
Noting that the Advocates concerned in the present case did not act as per the rules prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) with respect to the duties of lawyers towards the court and their client, the Bench daid the BCI entrusted upon the lawyers the responsibility 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 the Delhi High Court and should not have raised such baseless allegations, functioning of the Court, it added.
Further noting that non-reflection of the Advocates’ names and Bar Council registrations was also contrary to the practice directions notified by the High Court and the BCI Rules, the Bench directed the Bar Council of Delhi to initiate disciplinary proceedings on two lawyers.
Pointing out that the journalist had the duty to verify the allegations before bringing the notice in public domain, the High Court discharged the journalist with the direction that he ought to exercise caution in future and continue his journalism with a greater sense of responsibility.
Terming Pandey a habitual offender, the Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two weeks.
The post Delhi High Court expresses displeasure over lawyers releasing case-related documents to media in sub-judice matters appeared first on India Legal.