VIDYA DHAR & ORS.versusMULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD.

                          [2013] 5 S.C.R. 510


A                      VIDYA DHAR & ORS.
                                  v.
                MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD.
           (Special Leave Petition (C} No. 9967 of 2013}
                             MAY 3, 2013
B
           [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE AND
                   VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

         Criminal Trial - Free and fair trial - Balancing of interests
C   - Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers Recruitment Scam -
    Conviction of petitioners - Pending appeal - Proposal of
    respondent to broadcast I telecast an episode on television
    on "JBT Teachers Scam"- Suit for permanent injunction by
    Petitioners to restrain respondent from such broadcast/
D   telecast - Injunction order passed by Single Judge of High
    Court -- Set aside by Division Bench in appeal - SLPs - Plea
    of petitioners that they were entitled to a fair trial and the
    proposed telecast would have prejudicial impact on their
    rights, and further, though the petitioners might stand
E   convicted, an appeal is a continuation of the trial and even
    at the appellate stage, there was every possibility of bias
    against them - Held: Once the trial was completed and the
    Petitioners convicted and, thereafter, arrested, there was no
    further possibility of any bias against them at the time of
F   hearing of the e1ppeal - No interference called for with the
    order of the Division Bench of the High Court - However, in
    order to safeguard the interests of the Petitioners, certain
    restrictions imposed at the time of the screening of the
    episode concerned - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
G   s. 13(2) - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 120B - Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 - s.389.

      In a matter relating to the Junior Basic Trained (JBT)
  Teachers Recruitment scam, the three petitioners were
  convicted by the trial court under Section 120B IPC read
H                             510
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. v. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. 511
                     LTD.
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,        A
1988 and detained in judicial custody. The Petitioners
filed appeal before the High Court, and alongwith the
same also filed applications under Section 389 CrPC,
seeking suspension of conviction, sentence as well as
for grant of interim bail.                                     B

    Meanwhile, during pendency of the appeal, the
Petitioners came to learn that the Respondent was
proposing to broadcast an episode of the TV program
"CRIME PATROL DASTAK", in which a dramatized
version of "JBT Teachers Scam" was to be presented.            C
The Petitioners filed suit before the High Court for
permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from
broadcasting/telecasting the above-mentioned television
program on any media channel, including the Internet.
The Single Judge restrained the Respondent from                D
broadcasting/ telecasting the said program till the
application for suspension of sentence under Section
389 of Cr.P.C. was decided. On appeal, the Division
Bench set aside the order of injunction passed by the
Single Judge.                                                  E

     In the instant SLP, the order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court was challenged on the ground
that the said proposed telecast of the episode would have
prejudicial impact on rights of the petitioners, who were      F
entitled to a fair trial and further, though the petitioners
might stand convicted, an appeal from the judgment of
conviction is a continuation of the trial and even at
appellate stage, there was every possibility of bias
against the petitioners, which would be against the            G
concept of a free and fair trial.

    Dismissing the SLP, the Court

     HELD:1. Once the trial has been completed and the
Petitioners have been convicted and, thereafter, arrested,     H
    512      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 5 S.C.R.


A 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 sentence is
  now in the public domain and is available for anyone to
  see. [Para 16] [517-B-C]
B
       2. No interference is called for with the order of the
  Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the order
  of the Single Judge. However, in order to safeguard the
  interests of the Petitioners, certain restrictions can be
  imposed at the time of the screening of the said Episodes.
C Accc;>rdingly, 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
D with the JBT Teachers Recruitment and had been
  sente.nced to different periods of custody, and that steps
  are taken to protect their identity, as far as possible. [Para
  17] [517-D-F]

E        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
    Petition No. 9967 of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2013 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAQ (OS) 119 of 2013.

F        Giriraj Subramanium, Salman Hashmi, Liz Mathew for the
    Petitioners.

          Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
        ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. The three petitioners before us
    are now detained in judicial custody in the Tihar Jail on being
    convicted under Section 1208 of Indian Penal Code read with
    Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
H
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. v. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. 513
          LTD. [ALTAMAS KABIR,CJI.]
     2. The petitioner no. 3 was the Chief Minister of the State A
of Haryana from 1999 to 2005 and during 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.
                                                                  B
     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            C
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, D
Haryana, he was pressurized into altering the lists for
appointment of Junior Basic Trained Teachers. Since, he had
resisted and did not succumb to such pressure, he was being '
unfairly targetted by the administration.
                                                                  E
     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
                                                                  F
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.
                                                                  G
     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 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 H
    514     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013) 5 S.C.R.


A 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
  1208 of Indian Penal Code and for the period of 7 years of
B 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
C 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 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
D 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
E 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/
F 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
  issued notice on the matter on 21.2.2013. On 22.2.2013, the
G 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
H 22.2.2013, restrained the Respondent from broadcasti.ng/
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. v. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. 515
          LTD. [ALTAMAS KABIR,CJI.]
telecasting the said program till the application for suspension      A
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     B
order dated 28.2.2013, allowed the first appeal and set aside
the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge.

     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.                                        c
      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                    D
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     E
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 proje<::tion, which apparently
was intended to be a picturisation 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,         F
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,        G
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.
                                                                      H
I




        516     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


    A      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. Rohatgi also urged that the object of the
      television program is to create a prejudiced public environment
    B 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.
    c 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
    D 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 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
    E 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
    F 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
    G circumstances, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, did
      not commit any error in rejecting the Petitioners' 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
    H
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. v. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. 517
          LTD. [ALTAMAS KABIR,CJI.]
Petitioners being biased or prejudiced or even discredited,          A
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.
                                                                     B
     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       C
the appeal. The contents of the trial and the ultimate judgment
of conviction and sentence is now in the public domain and is
available for anyone to see.

      17. Without going into the question of the right of f~eedom
of speech of the maker of the Television Episodes, we are            D
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      E
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 besn convicted in connection with the          F
JBT Teachers Recruitment and had been sentenced to 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.                                              G

B.B.B.                                          SLP dismissed.