Rajasthan High Court seizes man’s mobile phone after he records court proceedings

When the court inquired of him as to why he was recording the court proceedings, he said that he was the driver of the petitioner.

The court noted that the act amounted to contempt of court.

“This act constitutes a serious interference with Administration of Justice and also makes out a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971″, the court remarked.

The court noted that Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, expressly prohibits the recording of court proceedings in any manner.

“The said Rule lays down that there shall be no unauthorised recording of the proceedings by any person or entity,” the court observed.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case where it had held that the law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process and if such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself.

The court asserted that the contempt in the case was of such a nature that it substantially interfered with the due course of justice.

The court therefore directed the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner and his driver. It further directed the registrar (judicial) to lodge a report against the driver and ordered seizure of his phone.

The court also directed the station house officer of the concerned jurisdiction to take appropriate legal action against him.

Rs 1 lakh fine

• Last year in February, the Bombay High Court had imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on a man for audio recording the court proceedings.
• The incident came to light when a court staff member noticed an individual was audio recording court proceedings.
• Upon noticing this, the court staff member confronted the person, who then stated that he was a relative of one of the parties whose case was listed before the court.
• The individual admitted that he had not obtained any permission from the registry of the court for such recording.
• The counsel in the case requested the court to show leniency to him, as this was his first such incident and therefore prayed not to take stringent action against him.
• He, thereafter, on instructions from the person concerned, informed the court that, for his said misconduct, he had undertaken to pay a cost of Rs 1 lakh to the high court employees medical welfare fund at Mumbai, within a period of three days.