Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.9967 OF 2013

Vidya Dhar & Ors.      Petitioners Versus

Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.           Respondent

J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, C.J.I.

1. The  three  petitioners  before  us  are  now  

detained in judicial custody in the Tihar Jail on  

being convicted under Section 120B of Indian Penal  

Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of  

Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The petitioner no. 3 was the Chief Minister of  

the State of Haryana from 1999 to 2005 and during

Page 2

2

his tenure 3206 Junior Basic Trained Teachers were  

recruited in the year 2000.  During that time, one  

Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS, was the Director, Primary  

Education, Government of Haryana.

3. From  2000  onwards,  upon  certain  facts  being  

brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Government  of  

Haryana,  several  disciplinary  and  vigilance  

inquiries  were  initiated  against  the  said  Shri  

Sanjiv  Kumar.  An  FIR  was  registered  against  him  

under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of  

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. While  the  said  inquiries  were  pending,  Shri  

Sanjiv  Kumar  filed  Writ  Petition  (Criminal)  No.  

93/2003 before this Court, holding himself out to  

be a whistle blower and claiming that while he was  

functioning  as  Director,  Primary  Education,  

Haryana, he was pressurized into altering the lists  

for appointment of Junior Basic Trained Teachers.

Page 3

3

Since, he had resisted and did not succumb to such  pressure, he was being unfairly targetted by the  

administration.

5. On the basis of the said Writ Petition, this  

Court on 25.11.2003, directed the Central Bureau of  

Investigation, hereinafter referred to as "CBI", to  

inquire  into  the  allegations  made  therein.  

Pursuant to such direction, the CBI registered a  

Preliminary Enquiry bearing No.PE 1(A)/2003/ACU-IX  

dated  12.12.2003.  Subsequently,  the  said  

Preliminary  Enquiry  was  converted  into  RC  

3(A)/2004/ACU-IX on 24.5.2004, under Section 120B  

read  with  Section  420/467/468/471  of  the  Indian  

Penal  Code  and  Section  13(2)  read  with  Section  

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. On completion of investigation, the CBI filed a  

charge-sheet on 16.1.2013, against various persons  

including Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS.  The CBI also

Page 4

4

named the Petitioners herein as accused in the said  

case. The trial of the case was conducted by the  

learned Special Judge, Rohini, Delhi, who by his  

judgment and order dated 16.1.2013, convicted the  

Petitioners and the said Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS,  

amongst  others  and  on  22.1.2013,  sentenced  the  

Petitioners to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in  

respect of conviction under Section 120B of Indian  

Penal  Code  and  for  the  period  of  7  years  of  

rigorous imprisonment in respect of Section 13(2)  

of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of  

sentence  dated  16.1.2013  and  22.1.2013  

respectively, the Petitioners preferred an appeal  

before the Delhi High Court on 15.2.2013.  Along  

with  the  appeal,  the  Petitioners  had  also  filed  

applications  under  Section  389  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to

Page 5

5

as  "Cr.P.C.",  seeking  suspension  of  conviction,  

sentence as well as for grant of interim bail.  The  

matter  appears  to  be  pending  before  the  learned  

Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which issued  

notice to the CBI on the appeal and the matter has  

been posted for further hearing.

8. During the pendency of the appeal before the  

Delhi High Court, the Petitioners and their family  

members  came  to  learn  that  the  Respondent  was  

proposing  to  broadcast  Episode  Nos.  214-215  of  

“CRIME PATROL DASTAK” on 23-24.2.2013, in which a  

dramatized version of “JBT Teachers Scam” was to be  

presented.  The Petitioners thereupon filed CS(OS)  

No.335/2013  before  the  Delhi  High  Court  on  

20.2.2013 for permanent injunction to restrain the  

Respondent from broadcasting/telecasting the above-

mentioned television program on any media channel,  

including the Internet.  The learned Single Judge

Page 6

6

issued  notice  on  the  matter  on  21.2.2013.   On  

22.2.2013,  the  Respondent  published  an  

advertisement  in  the  Times  of  India  regarding  

broadcasting of the show wherein a summary of the  

episodes to be shown, was published.   According to  

the  Petitioners,  the  said  summary  is  a  clear  

misrepresentation of the facts.  The learned Single  

Judge vide order dated 22.2.2013, restrained the  

Respondent  from  broadcasting/telecasting  the  said  

program  till  the  application  for  suspension  of  

sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was decided.

9. On 23.2.2013, the Respondent filed FAO(OS) No.  

119/2013  before  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Delhi  

High  Court  and  after  hearing  the  parties,  the  

Division  Bench  by  its  judgment  and  order  dated  

28.2.2013, allowed the first appeal and set aside  

the  order  of  injunction  passed  by  the  learned  

Single Judge.

Page 7

7

10. Thus, against the said judgment and order of  

the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the  

present Special Leave Petition has been filed.  

11. The main ground of challenge to the impugned  

order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi  

High  Court  on  28.2.2013,  is  that  the  proposed  

telecast  of  the  Episode  Nos.214-215  of  “CRIME  

PATROL DASTAK”, in which the dramatised version of  

"JBT TEACHERS RECRUITMENT SCAM" is to be broadcast,  

will have a prejudicial impact on the rights of the  

Petitioners who were entitled to a fair trial.  It  

was submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior  

Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners, that the  

picturisation  of  the  said  Episode  was  meant  to  

project the Petitioners in a negative light on the  

basis of allegations made against them by the CBI.  

Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the entire projection,  

which apparently was intended to be a picturisation

Page 8

8

of the events which led to the conviction of the  

Petitioners, creates a detailed similarity between  

the  actors  and  the  situation  in  which  they  

performed, with the actual events, which had the  

potential of destroying the Petitioners' political  

career.   

12. Mr.  Rohatgi  submitted  that,  though  the  

Petitioners may stand convicted in respect of the  

charges  framed  against  them,  an  appeal  from  the  

judgment  of  conviction  is  a  continuation  of  the  

trial and even at the appellate stage, there is  

every possibility of bias against the Petitioners,  

which would be against the concept of a free and  

fair trial.   

13. Learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  Division  

Bench failed to weigh the prejudice that would be  

caused to the Petitioners against the broadcast of  

the  aforesaid  Episode  for  commercial  gain.   Mr.

Page 9

9

Rohatgi  also  urged  that  the  object  of  the  

television program is to create a prejudiced public  

environment  against  the  Petitioners  and  thereby  

obstructing the administration of justice in a free  

and fair manner.  Mr. Rohatgi urged that the right  

to freedom of speech did not include within its  

scope, the right to create a hostile environment  

when the Petitioners' pending appeal comes up for  

final hearing.  Mr. Rohatgi also urged that since  

the  Petitioners'  application  under  Section  389  

Cr.P.C. was pending hearing, the outcome thereof  

would  be  highly  prejudiced  if  the  Serial  in  

question is allowed to be broadcast prior to the  

disposal thereof.

14. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate,  

who  appeared  for  some  of  the  other  Petitioners,  

reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Rohatgi on  

behalf of the Petitioner No.3 and urged that it

Page 10

10

would be unfair to the Petitioner if the Episode in  

question  was  allowed  to  be  screened  before  the  

Petitioners' Application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.  

was disposed of.   

15. On  the  other  hand,  appearing  for  the  

Respondent,  Mr.  Harish  N.  Salve,  learned  Senior  

Advocate,  contended  that  the  trial  of  the  

Petitioners stood concluded on their conviction and  

sentence  under  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  

Indian  Penal  Code  and  the  provisions  of  the  

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988.   Mr.  Salve  

urged  that  the  entire  matter  regarding  the  JBT  

Teachers Recruitment was in the public domain and  

the  judgment  of  conviction  continues  to  be  

operative unless set aside by the Supreme Court.  

It  was  urged  that  in  the  circumstances,  the  

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, did not  

commit  any  error  in  rejecting  the  Petitioners'

Page 11

11

prayer for withholding the screening of the Serial  

in question pending disposal of the Petitioners'  

prayer for stay of conviction and appeal.  It was  

urged that there was no further possibility of the  

Petitioners  being  biased  or   prejudiced  or  even  

discredited, once the judgment had been delivered  

in the trial.  Mr. Salve urged that no cause had  

been made out for stay of operation of the order of  

the Division Bench of the High Court, as impugned  

in the Special Leave Petition.   

16. Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined  

to agree with Mr. Salve that once the trial has  

been  completed  and  the  Petitioners  have  been  

convicted and, thereafter, arrested, there is no  

further possibility of any bias against them at the  

time of hearing of the appeal.  The contents of the  

trial and the ultimate judgment of conviction and

Page 12

12

sentence  is  now  in  the  public  domain  and  is  

available for anyone to see.   

17. Without going into the question of the right of  

freedom of speech of the maker of the Television  

Episodes, we are convinced that no interference is  

called for with the order of the Division Bench of  

the  High  Court,  setting  aside  the  order  of  the  

learned  Single  Judge.  However,  in  order  to  

safeguard the interests of the Petitioners, we are  

also of the view that certain restrictions can be  

imposed at the time of the screening of the said  

Episodes. Accordingly, the Producers, Directors and  

Distributors  and  all  those  connected  with  the  

screening of the aforesaid Episodes on television,  

shall ensure that there is no direct similarity of  

the characters in the Serial with the Petitioners,  

who have been convicted in connection with the JBT  

Teachers  Recruitment  and  had  been  sentenced  to

Page 13

13

different periods of custody, and that steps are  

taken  to  protect  their  identity,  as  far  as  

possible.

18. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with  

the aforesaid observations.          

………………………………………………CJI.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

……………………………………………………J.    (ANIL R. DAVE)

……………………………………………………J.    (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

New Delhi Dated: 03.05.2013.