R.K. Anand v.

Registrar, Delhi High Court1

COURT: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

CORUM: B.N. Agarwal J., G.S. Singhvi J., and Aftab Alam J.

FACTS
The material facts of the case are as follows:
 A hit and run incident occurred on the 10th of January 1999, when a speeding car
driving recklessly in Delhi ran over 6 people and fled from the scene.
 Mr. Sanjiv Nanda was the main accused in this case who was identified driving a
black coloured BMW, while being in an inebriated state.
 On 30th May 2007, NDTV news channel conducted a sting operation and exposed the
nexus between defence lawyer and public prosecutor while attempting to fix a
witness.
 The Delhi High Court suo-moto started the proceedings of the matter and held both
the advocates guilty of contempt of court and consequently barred them from
practicing in the subordinate as well as the high court for a period of 4 months.

ISSUES
1. Whether the High Court was justified in holding the two advocates guilty for criminal
contempt of court?
2. Whether the High Court had the power to ban the advocates from appearing before
subordinate courts as well as high courts for a specified period as a punishment for
contempt of court?
3. Whether NDTV intervened with the course of justice by carrying out this sting
operation and exposing it on television while a trial was ongoing?

RULES
1. Section 2(c) Contempt of Court Act 1971: Criminal Contempt
2. Section 34 Advocates Act 1961: Power of High Courts to make rules
3. Article 145 Constitution of India 1950: Rules of Court

1
(2009) 8 SCC 106
 4. Article 215 Constitution of India 1950: High Courts to be courts of record
ANALYSIS
The arguments that were put forth by Advocate R.K Anand before the Hon’ble Court is that
since NDTV exposed the nexus by broadcasting it on television, it should be held guilty for
contempt of court.The admissibility of the recordings of the sting operation was also argued
by them.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has erred in its decision. Although it
was agreed that the conduct of Advocate I. U. Khan’s was improper for a lawyer in general
and prosecutor in particular. As per the Hon’ble court, the conduct of advocate I.U. Khan
amounts to mere criminal contempt of court and not professional misconduct. The fact that
had a major influence in the findings of the Hon’ble court were the transcripts of
conversation that happened between Advocate I.U. Khan and Sunil Kulkarni.

The Hon’ble Court held that while R.K. Anand’s Conviction was justifiable and valid, the
conviction of Advocate I.U. Khan was not. The facts and circumstances of this case did not
provide any substantive evidence of the sting operation recordings. Additionally, because he
received copies of all the sting recordings and their transcripts and had the chance to fully
defend himself, there was no violation of natural justice. The court upheld the conviction
based on the sting recordings as being proper. Since there was no other option, the court had
decided the matter on the basis of the sting recordings. Thereby the conviction of RK Anand
is proper, lawful and legitimate.
“
While dealing with the issue relating to the power of High Court to ban advocates from
practicing for a specific period, the Hon’ble Court held that the High court had no authority
as it is the Bar Council of India that that the authority to punish advocated for their
professional misconduct as per the procedure prescribed in the Advocate’s Act 1971. The
case of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India can be referred to determine that the
revoking of advocate’s license is not the punishment for professional misconduct but the
reason of suspension of advocate’s license was to maintain the dignity, decorum and orderly
functions of court’s proceedings.”
CONCLUSION
The current case is a tragic example of how the Indian legal system fails to treat offences like
witness tampering or obstruction of justice seriously enough. In the end, he received a fine
and was allowed to let go after an apology. R.K. Anand went on to run in the general election
in 2014 despite not even receiving a jail sentence. These actions by a lawyer, who are
effectively officers of the court, should be faced with severe penalties, to say the least.
Offenders should be permanently excluded from the practise of law and should never be
allowed to do so again.