The judgment of the Delhi High Court holding senior advocates R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan guilty of criminal contempt has administered a timely shock to the legal fraternity.

The facts, briefly, are that one Sanjiv Nanda was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of about five persons. I.U. Khan was the public prosecutor and R.K. Anand was Nanda’s defence counsel. One Kulkarni is a key witness in the case. The fate of the prosecution materially depends on the testimony of a particular key witness, named Kulkarni.

On 30th May 2007, the news channel NDTV telecast a report about a “sting” operation on the role of the defence lawyer and the special public prosecutor in the ongoing sessions trial. On May 31, 2007 a division bench of the Delhi High Court, given the serious issues concerning criminal justice administration raised by the telecast, registered a contempt petition suo motu.

The court, after viewing the original video recordings and after giving all concerned parties a full hearing — as also the amicus curiae, Arvind Nigam — concluded that Khan and Anand were guilty of criminal contempt. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines criminal contempt as any act which “interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice or has the tendency to do so”. The rationale of contempt power is that unobstructed administration of justice is essential to maintain public confidence in the courts.

The high court after detailed consideration found that Khan and Anand were in league in their efforts to suborn the key witness Kulkarni and thereby secure Nanda’s acquittal. The court wondered why a defence lawyer should discuss money with Kulkarni and why there should be discussion about the strategy regarding the conduct of the prosecution case with the public prosecutor, Khan. The tragedy lies as the high court points out, “in the willingness of Anand and Khan to meet and converse with Kulkarni, when they, as seasoned lawyers, ought to have known better”. Furthermore, Anand himself and through his emissary was seen negotiating the quantum of payment to Kulkarni obviously to secure acquittal for his client by influencing Kulkarni and thereby interfering with the judicial process. In the words of the high court, “the entire material leaves a bitter taste in the mouth about the goings-on in the BMW case and there is no manner of doubt whatsoever that there was complicity between Mr Khan and Mr Anand” and that Khan and Anand had interfered or obstructed or at least tended to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice; and consequently both of them were guilty of criminal contempt.

... contd.