Recently, two separate incidents had come to light from the Gujarat High Court which laid bare the hazards of live-streaming court proceedings. Both instances are similar in that they included persons who had joined the court proceedings online and had unwittingly engaging in conduct that was not in accordance with the decorum of the court.

In the first instance, a litigant named ‘Samad Battery’ could be seen attending the court from his bathroom and, perhaps having mistakenly left his camera on, the moment was captured and telecast in real time since the proceedings were being live-streamed. In the second instance, Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna could be seen sipping beer while donning court attire and attending court proceedings. He, too, perhaps had left his camera on mistakenly. The videos went viral on social media and the Court was subjected to some amount of ridicule.

The High Court took exception to the conduct of both these people and a division bench of Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani initiated two separate suo motu contempt cases against them for their conduct.

On July 14, the Division Bench heard the contempt cases instituted against the two one after the other. In the first case concerning the litigant ‘Samad Battery’, the Court can be seen to asking the lawyer of the contemnor if his client was not briefed about how to conduct himself in a courtroom. Then the Court can be seen asking, rhetorically,

“What do you have to say? [We] intend to send him behind bars and impose one lakh cost.” (See the livestream of contempt proceedings here).

Immediately after this question, without even fully hearing the lawyer of the contemnor, the Court announces: “deposit one lakh.” In response to this, when the contemnor’s lawyer argued that the contemnor is a poor person, the Court replied (in Gujarati), in a stern tone:

“That does not mean you can disrespect the High Court. There are no mistakes. Even if you accept [your mistake]…Contempt [of Courts Act] does not say that if you accept, your mistake is forgiven.”

The oral order passed by the Court categorically notes that the contemnor accepted his mistake and was ready to tender an unconditional apology. In the order passed, the Court directed the contemnor to deposit ₹1 lakh in the Registry by the next date of hearing. Throughout the oral hearing, the Court’s conduct appears stern, and even impatient and angry. It even rebuked the Registrar (IT) of the High Court for not filing a report suggesting ways in which such incidents can be avoided, as directed by the Court’s earlier order.

In the second case, heard immediately afterwards, the Court’s approach seems entirely different. The Court noted in its order that Mr Tanna had joined the court virtually on that day and could be seen sipping beer during the live proceedings. It heard Mr Tanna patiently during the contempt hearing. The oral order records that Mr Tanna wishes to file an affidavit tendering his unconditional apology and that the Court directs the Registry to accept the said affidavit and place it on record. Not only that, the Court allows the senior advocate to explain how or why his misconduct happened, a courtesy it did not extend to the poor litigant in the immediately preceding case. Surprisingly, the Court let Mr Tanna lecture itself on how such instances can be avoided and suggest that earlier system of “virtual waiting rooms” should be revived to prevent such inadvertent instances. In fact, the Court advises him to give his suggestions in the affidavit he would file as well.

The difference in the Court’s conduct and approach towards the two cases – which are otherwise identical – is glaringly visible in the orders as well as the livestream. In the first case, it comes across as offended, angry, impatient and stern. In the second, it seems to be empathetic and open to hearing the contemnor’s side, even receptive to suggestions from the contemnor himself!

There is no denying that courtroom decorum must be maintained and that both lawyers as well as litigants must conduct themselves in a disciplined manner. The conduct of both these contemnors was unbecoming of and unfit for a courtroom. The Court was justified in initiating contempt proceedings against them. However, the disparate handling of the two cases is unfortunate. In fact, the outcome is entirely unjust. Consider the first contemnor, who is a poor litigant, perhaps appearing before a court of law for the first time. His conduct – going to the washroom during virtually attending a court – is, of course, shameful and even made the High Court subject of much ridicule and humour. But it is difficult to assume that his conduct was intentional, for by doing so he was also making himself a subject of humiliation and ridicule.

The courts cannot be so out of tune with reality so as not to realise that many of litigants are unaware and ignorant about courts and their functioning. For many of them, courts are intimidating, often indifferent places. The contemnor accepted his mistake and offered to tender an unconditional apology. Often, an unconditional apology would bring an end to contempt proceedings of such nature. However, in this case, the Court not only refuses to accept his apology but, in an intimidating tone combined with an angry demeanour, directs him to deposit ₹1 lakh.

In the second case, as opposed to this ignorant litigant, the contemnor is a seasoned lawyer practicing for decades now and donning a senior gown. His conduct was, one can argue, more contemptuous than that of Samad Battery. The lawyer can be seen sipping beer, before the High Court of a State where alcohol is prohibited and its consumption is punishable. The Court does not enquire whether the lawyer was in Gujarat at the time or out of the State. Secondly, consider the difference between performing a bodily function and consuming alcohol. It is not far-fetched to think that the first litigant could have been suffering from a bad stomach and couldn’t help but relieve himself. His conduct could have been driven by necessity and not choice. Whereas the conduct of the senior advocate – drinking beer while attending court — cannot but be intentional and deliberate. Considering this difference between the nature of the conduct involved and the vast difference in the background and education of the two contemnors, the Court, instead of treating the case of an ignorant man slightly liberally and a seasoned lawyer sternly, does the exact opposite: it intimidates the poor litigant and shows empathy to the lawyer.

During the proceedings, the court orally remarked that it is only concerned with preserving the “majesty of this court”. One must pause for a moment and think if real “majesty” lies intimidating a poor litigant of the country, or in recognising the reality of our justice system that there are litigants who are ignorant about courts and they can be dealt with in an empathetic manner. It invariably brings to mind a quote (wrongly) attributed to Atticus Finch:

“Are you proud of yourself tonight, that you have insulted a total stranger whose circumstances you know nothing about?”

In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus Finch says to the court towards the end of the trial:

“Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.”

One wonders if had Finch stood before the Gujarat High Court today, would he have been able to say the same?

Masoom Sanyal is a final year law student at Gujarat National Law University.