New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a strongly worded judgment that resonates beyond the immediate case Tuesday, called out a “disturbing trend” in contemporary media reporting of court proceedings.
“It has become a disturbing trend in recent times to report even some most innocuous remark(s) that may be made by the court during the case hearings, which may or may not even be connected with the proceedings, merely to create sensation,” a judgment by Delhi HC’s Justice Neena Bansal Krishna read.
The case—Shravan Gupta vs Directorate of Enforcement (ED)—deals simultaneously with the legality of non-bailable warrants against businessman Shravan Gupta, as well as misreporting by major media outlets that falsely attributed remarks to the court against Gupta’s senior counsel, Vikas Pahwa.
Six articles that appeared in “CNN News 18, The Tribune Group, The Times Group, Rabhyaa-Rabhav Corp Pvt Ltd (Law Trend), Indian Express Ltd, and CSR Journal” were being questioned by the Delhi HC.
Calling out the media for irresponsibility, the Delhi HC emphasised that journalists and media houses “owe an absolute responsibility to conduct sensible reporting” and, at the same time, ensure “accuracy and fairness in media reporting”.
Gupta & the AgustaWestland scam
At the heart of the case lies the multi-million-dollar AgustaWestland helicopter scam, which first came to light in 2014. It involves allegations of kickbacks in the purchase of helicopters for VVIPs.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), in a 2014 complaint, alleged that Shravan Gupta received Rs 24 crore as ‘proceeds of crime’, routed through offshore entities.
The businessman, also the managing director of Emaar MGF Land Ltd, was linked to alleged middlemen Guido Haschke and Christian Michel James, both key figures in the helicopter deal. The ED alleged that funds from Mauritian firm, Interstellar Technologies Limited, a company allegedly used to launder bribe money, were transferred to companies under Shravan Gupta’s control.
The investigation, which has dragged on for over a decade, has hit repeated roadblocks due to Gupta’s failure to appear before investigators, prompting the trial court in August 2020 to issue the non-bailable warrants.
Gupta’s plea to cancel NBWs
An arrest warrant acts like a key held by a court, used to “unlock” cooperation when an accused chooses to stay outside the room of accountability.
Shravan Gupta’s petition before the Delhi HC challenged the lower court’s refusal to cancel the NBWs. He argued that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation but sought to participate via video conferencing, instead of appearing in person, citing medical conditions—Type 2 diabetes, hypothyroidism, and the risk of COVID-19.
Gupta further alleged that the warrants were issued “mala fide,” motivated by political vendetta, and that he posed no flight risk.
Also Read: Why India refused to accept their 9th Asia Cup trophy from Pakistan minister Naqvi
‘Gupta’s intention to avoid probe’
Justice Krishna rejected Gupta’s plea, finding that his conduct over several years reflected “deliberate and calculated evasion of the process of law”.
The court noted that between December 2019 and September 2020, Gupta had been served with nine summonses by the ED but failed to appear in person. Notably, the court observed that Gupta produced a medical certificate on 24 November 2019, recommending rest for fever and then left for London just two days later, on 26 November, demonstrating a “clear intention to avoid the investigation”.
“The petitioner’s insistence on joining the investigation only through video conferencing and his persistent overseas presence constitute a deliberate and calculated attempt to evade the process of law,” the court held.
The court made clear that the use of video conferencing, though accepted in some judicial contexts, cannot be invoked by an accused as a shield to dictate how an investigation should proceed.
“It does not give an inherent right to the petitioner to deny appearing in person even though his presence is mandatorily required,” the court said.
The ED argued that Gupta’s physical presence was imperative to confront him with “voluminous documents recovered during search operations”, including digital evidence and material received through Letter Rogatories, concerning his foreign companies.
The court upheld that reasoning, noting that the complexity and scope of the investigation made virtual questioning “wholly unsustainable in law and fact”.
Finding that the trial court had correctly issued the NBWs based on objective satisfaction of these facts, the Delhi HC concluded that “there is no merit in the present petition”, refusing to cancel the arrest warrants.
Delhi HC on media reporting
The other focus in the 36-page judgment of the Delhi HC was media reporting. The court made the observations while dealing with Gupta’s application against defamatory media reports on the court proceedings.
He alleged that news articles, published on 16 and 17 July 2025, by several major media outlets, including CNN-News18, The Tribune, The Times Group, and The Indian Express Ltd, among others, falsely attributed remarks to the court, claiming that Justice Bansal Krishna called senior advocate Vikas Pahwa’s conduct “unbecoming” of a senior lawyer.
The Delhi HC emphatically rejected this, clarifying that “no such statement was ever made” and that the false attribution appeared “designed to create a sensational news story…with scant regard to the harm it may cause to an individual”.
Justice Bansal Krishna pointed out that the actual remark was merely an “innocuous general remark expressing a concern about repeated adjournments by counsels”, not a targeted criticism of Pahwa.
The Delhi HC also noted the timing and selective publication of the articles, and the false narrative appeared only in day-after reports following 16 July evening. However, no such remarks were made in open court or recorded in the order. This raised, in the court’s words, a “strong suspicion of orchestration intended to deliberately revile the learned senior counsel’s (Pahwa) image”.
Justice Bansal Krishna cautioned that such misreporting “creates unnecessary sensationalisation” and undermines public understanding of judicial work. She noted that the general public, unfamiliar with legal nuances, depends heavily on the media for its perception of justice. So, accuracy and fairness are non-negotiable duties for journalists.
Citing prior legal rulings, the Delhi HC noted that journalists cannot claim immunity when they publish a distorted or false version of court proceedings and that the media must avoid reporting anything that could prejudice ongoing proceedings or mislead public opinion.
The court concluded that it expects that media houses “which are of great repute, would themselves consider whether such reporting should be allowed to continue on their media portals”.
The judgment expressed the court’s expectation that “media houses of great repute would themselves consider whether such reporting should be allowed to continue on their portals”.
In conclusion, the court dealt with Gupta’s “underlying fear” that his “physical appearance will inevitably lead to his arrest”.
Explaining the purpose of the NBW is to secure his attendance, the court reminded him that “the law provides adequate remedies for this apprehension” and that he “has ample safeguards and provisions under the law to seek protection, once he subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court.”
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Jemimah Rodrigues shows real strength lies in vulnerability. It’s a powerful reminder