ICC tourney case -- HC dismisses former Prasar Bharati advisor's plea

ICC tourney case -- HC dismisses former Prasar Bharati advisor's plea
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, AUG 7: The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to issue any direction to Prasar Bharati for supply of certain documents regarding the 1998 controversial deal for television coverage of the ICC knockout tournament to its former financial advisor Arun Agarwal against whom former International Cricket Council (ICC) president Jagmohan Dalmia filed a defamation case.

Dismissing the petition of Arun Agarwal, whose services were obtained by Prasar Bharati to look into the formation and functioning of the Sports consortium of private parties for finalising the deal for coverage of the tournament, Justice Manmohan Sarin said the petitioner (Agarwal) was free to move the trial court for obtaining the documents.

He said the trial court, which was hearing the defamation case, "could give appropriate directions for production of such documents as are required during the trial for defence".

"Judicial scrutiny would ensure that the requisition is confined to the records as are relevant for the purpose of defending the petitioner and not a general requisition of all the files/records".

Agarwal in his petition had claimed that his report had highlighted a "conspiracy between the Prasar Bharati officials and the consortium parties by which Doordarshan was made to suffer losses over Rs 20 crore".

He had made the report public in April this year at a press conference and alleged that Dalmia was involved in the conspircy.

The High Court said the criminal complaint of defamation by Dalmia was only at a stage where the trial court had issued process under Section 204 of CrPC and summoned Agarwal.

The CrPC itself contained specific provisions enabling the trial court to issue direction for production of the documents which might not be in possession of the accused. Therefore, it was not a fit case where the High Court should exercise its discretion for issuing any direction, Justice Sarin observed.

Agarwal's counsel Prashant Bhushan claimed that his client had made his report public while acting, in public interest, and his requriment for all relevant documents was essential for the purpose of defending himself.

Bhushan also referred to the November 25, 1997 circular of Prasar Bharati, which contained instructions to its officals for ensuring transparancy in its functioning.

"Keeping in mind the acclaimed policy of transparency and right of information of the petitioner, the respondent (Prasar Bharati) was obliged to supply the photocopies of the documents," he argued.