JUDGMENT : 1. Issue notice on the special leave petition as also on the application for stay. 2. Notice is accepted by Ms. Nitya Rama Krishnan, Adv. and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecut allegedly for an accident that took place in the Parliament on 13th December, 2001. It is not dispute that the trial of these accused is already over and on 25th November, 2002 the Court notified that the judgment would be delivered on 11th December, 2002 Subsequently, on 5th December, 2002, the petitioner herein Zee News advertised on its channel that it would broadcast a telefilm reportedly a reconstruction of December 13 attack on the Parliament, on 13th December, 2002. It appears that the Court subsequently changed the date of delivery of judgment from 11th December, 2002 to 16th December, 2002. In such a situation, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Delhi on 12th December, 2002 praying therein that the broadcast of telefilm reportedly a reconstruction of December 13 attack on the Parliament by the petitioner herein may cause prejudice to their case and, therefore, the broadcast may be stayed till the delivery of the judgment. It appears that the High Court without issuing notice to the petitioner herein or giving an opportunity to it passed the following order : "In the meantime in case the film "December 13 Parliament Attack" is to be telecast the same shall be done only with the prior permission of the trial court Any order which the trial court passes in the meanwhile with regard to the telecast of the film shall be passed only after hearing the accused." 4. It is against the said order passed by the High Court, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition. 5. We have heard Shri Harish N Salve and Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nitya Rama Krishnan and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. 6. After we heard the matter, we find that there was neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the respondents for passing the interim order nor an irreparable injury was likely to be caused to the respondents if interim order had not been passed. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. 6. After we heard the matter, we find that there was neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the respondents for passing the interim order nor an irreparable injury was likely to be caused to the respondents if interim order had not been passed. It may be noted that the Sessions Court on 25th November, 2002 notified that the judgment would be delivered on 11th December, 2002. The petitioner on 5th December, 2002 advertised that it would broadcast the telefilm on 13th December, 2002. The aforesaid dates show that the telecast of the film was not for the purpose, in any way, to influence the mind of the Judge. Further, we find that the Judges by their judicial training and the kind of office they hold are not expected to be influenced by any such broadcast of such film. For the aforesaid reasons we stay the operation of the order under challenge. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks and rejoinder in another four weeks. List after the expiry of eight weeks.