Gujarat High Court fines man Rs 1 lakh for attending hearing from toilet

The Surat man, who was personally present in court on Monday, has been directed to deposit Rs 1 lakh to the court’s registry before the next hearing on July 22.

On the same day, the court also heard the suo motu contempt plea against Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna, who tendered an unconditional apology for appearing in a virtual proceeding while drinking from a beer mug. The Division Bench, during an oral exchange with Tanna, who submitted that he had “no intention” to disrespect the court, asked if “lack of intent could erase a contemptuous act”.

In the case of the Surat man, the court also questioned his lawyer whether he had been advised about appropriate behaviour in court. The lawyer informed the court that the man had been advised to present himself in an appropriate manner. The lawyer had represented the man in the June 20 hearing, which pertained to quashing a case in which the Surat resident was a complainant.

Meanwhile, referring to Tanna’s case, the bench said that the court registry had submitted a report stating that the senior advocate remained connected to the virtual proceedings for 26 minutes on June 26 before Justice Sandeep Bhatt when he was “seen talking on phone and having a drink in a beer mug” during the proceedings.

While submitting his unconditional apology, Tanna said, “I am not defending myself. I’m only pointing out so it can be taken care of. If control (with regard to joining the proceedings) is with the lawyers, this problem may arise. In my case, it was a pure error. If control is kept with officers of the court, our entry into the court wouldn’t happen… And that’s what the Supreme Court does.”

During the hearing of the contempt petition, the court said that the Registrar of Information Technology had not submitted a report apprising the court about the “mechanism to deal with contumacious litigants during online proceedings”. When the division bench was informed that the framing of the mechanism had been undertaken and submitted to the Chief Justice for approval, the court decided to hear the matter on July 22.