R.

K ANAND VS
REGISTRAR,DELHI HIGH
COURT
(2009) 8 SCC 106
FACTS

• Sanjeev Nanda, grandson of the former naval chief, S.M. Nanda, crushed six persons to
death while driving the car inebriated in the early hours of January 10, 1999 at Lodhi
Colony in South Delhi.
• It halted only after the driver lost control and going down a distance of 200-300 feet hit
the road divider. But the anxiety of the car's occupants to leave the accident site without
delay seemed to override all other considerations.
• The police investigation brought to light that the accident was caused by a black BMW
car which was being driven by Sanjeev Nanda. He was returning from a late night party,
under the influence of liquor, along with some friend(s)
• On May 30, 2007 NDTV exposed the nexus between the two well-known lawyers, who
tried to influence a key witness Sunil Kulkarni in the BMW hit-and-run case.
• Defence lawyer R K Anand and public prosecutor I U Khan were caught on hidden
camera trying to win over Sunil Kulkarni who on the night of 10th January 1999 saw
Sanjeev Nanda drive his black BMW on Delhi's Lodhi Road. Khan was immediately
removed from the case andthe Delhi Bar Council asked both lawyers for an explanation
and started an inquiry against them
• The Delhi high court took suo motu cognizance of the expose. NDTV was asked to
submit original tapes of the recordings, but the lawyers protested that the tapes were
tampered with. The case was heard for over a year. Eventually in August 2008, the High
Court found both of the lawyers guilty. They were barred them from Delhi courts for
four months and stripped off their seniority.
• Anand and Khan appealed against the High Court order in the Supreme Court under
article 132 of Indian constitution
ISSUES

• Whether the conviction of the two appellants for committing criminal contempt of court
is justified and sustainable?
• Whether the procedure adopted by the High Court in the contempt proceedings was
fair and reasonable, causing no prejudice to the two appellants?
• Whether it was open to the High Court to prohibit the appellants from appearing before
the High Court and the courts sub-ordinate to it for a specified period as one of the
punishments for criminal contempt of court?
• Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishments awarded to the
appellant scan be said to be adequate and commensurate to their misdeeds?
• The role of NDTV in carrying out sting operations and telecasting the program based on
thesting materials in regard to a criminal trial that was going on before the court
ISSUE 1

• Held, yes for RK Anand, and no for IU Khan

• RK Anand's appeal - Authenticity and integrity of the sting recordings was never disputed or doubted by
RK Anand; he kept on changing his stand in regard to the sting recordings
• in facts and circumstances of the case, there was no requirement of any formal proof of the sting
recordings , there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as he was given copies
of all the sting recordings along with their transcripts; he was fully made aware of the charge against him;
he was given fullest opportunity to defend himself and to explain his conduct.
• Held further, sting recordings were rightly made the basis of conviction and the irresistible conclusion is
that the conviction of RK Anand for contempt of Court is proper, legal and valid, calling for no
interference
• IU Khan Reference was to some 'Bade Sahab' in their conversation; and in the
conversation with one of the member of sting operation who was with Sunil Kulkarni all along
• Question as to whom they were referring to by saying 'Bade Sahab', found to be very
significant towards holding IU Khan guilty of contempt. High Court held that 'Bade Sahab' was
meant to be RK Anand, found to be unjustified –
• Conduct of IU Khan in the sting, examined - Finding, conduct to be improper, which crossed
the limits of proper professional conduct of a prosecutor(esp. engaged to conduct a
sensational trial), and a designated Senior Advocate of long standing - Held, charge of criminal
contempt not satisfactorily established against IU Khan - Benefit of doubt granted
ISSUE 2

• Non arraying as contemnors, of NDTV, found to be faulty on part of HC - Court

observed that by all reckoning, at the time of initiation of the proceeding, the place of
NDTV was along with the appellants facing charge of contempt; such a course would
have put the proceeding on a more even keel and given it a more balanced appearance;
there would than have been no scope for the grievance that the HC put the NDTV on
the complainant's seat
ISSUE 3

• Held,Yes - Contention was raised that the direction issued was beyond the jurisdiction of
HC, on ground that bar is akin to revocation/suspension of the lawyer's licence which is a
punishment for professional misconduct that can only be inflicted by the Bar Council
after following the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act
• Their Contention finds support from the Constitution Bench decision in 'Supreme Court
Bar Association vs. UOI, (1998) 4 SCC 409' - In SC Bar Association's case, Court had
observed that in a given case it might be possible for this Court or the HC to prevent
the contemnor advocate to appear before it till he purge himself of the contempt;
• in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. UOI, (2003) 2 SCC 45', it was held not as punishment for
professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to regulate the Court's proceedings
and to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the Courts
• Court added, that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is convicted of
criminal contempt from appearing in Court may not only be a measure to maintain
dignity and orderly functioning of the Courts but may become necessary for the self
protection of the Court and for preservation of the purity of Court proceedings -
ISSUE 4

• Held, No - Misdeeds of RK Anand noted, diversionary and intimidatory tactics adopted

by him throughout the proceedings before HC, leniency shown by the HC in meting out
the punishment, misplaced
• Action of appellant in trying to suborn the Court witness in a criminal trial was
reprehensible enough but his conduct before the HC aggravates the matter manifold; no
remorse for his gross misdemeanor; tried to take on the HC by defying its authority
• Notice thus issued to appellant/RK Anand for enhancement of punishment - Held further,
by his actions and conduct the appellant has established himself as a person who needs
to be kept away from the portals of the Court for a longer time.
• Show cause notice thus issued - Appeal by IU Khan, allowed; his conviction set aside -
Appeal by RK Anand, dismissed, subject to the notice of enhancement of punishment
issued to him - Further directions issued - Appeals disposed of.
• The Standard of Proof in Contempt of Court Proceedings: The Court spelt it out clearly
that there is a difference between the manner of proof in a contempt proceeding and
that in a criminal trial.
• While the standard of proof in both was said to be the same, namely, that of proving a
fact “beyond reasonable doubt”, the manner of proof in both was contended to
be different.
RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW

• The power to frame such rules should not be confused with the right to practice law. While
the Bar council can exercise control over the latter, the courts are in control of the former.
The distinction is clearly brought out by the difference in language in Section 49 of the
Advocates Act on the one hand and Article 145 of the Constitution of India and Section 34(1)
of the Advocates Act on the other. Section 49 merely empower the Bar Council to frame
rules laying down conditions subject to which an advocate shall have a right to practise i.e. do
all the other acts set out above.
• However, Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to make
rules for regulating this practice and procedure of the court including inter alia rules as to
persons practicing before this Court.
• Similarly Section 34 of the Advocates Act empowers High Courts to frame rules, inter
alia to lay down conditions on which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in courts.
Article 145 of the Constitution of India and Section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show
that there is no absolute right to an advocate to appear in a court.