The Bombay High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a government employee for secretly recording court proceedings on his mobile phone [High Court on its own motion v. Dilip Wagh].
A division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale said that while court proceedings are open to the public, all attendees are strictly required to adhere to courtroom rules and decorum in letter and spirit.
“There cannot be any objection for any member of the public to attend the Court and witness the Court proceedings, as they are open proceedings. However, certainly, restrictions on any member of the public to adhere to the rules and regulations governing the Court proceedings, when inside the Courtroom, need to be followed in letter and spirit,” the bench said.
The Court passed the order in a suo motu contempt of court case initiated by it after it spotted the contemnor, one Dilip Wagh, sitting in the courtroom with his mobile phone flash turned on.
The court staff immediately seized the device, and the IT Department successfully recovered the recently deleted video files.
The Court accepted Wagh’s apology and refrained from initiating any contempt proceedings.
However, it imposed strict disciplinary penalties.
The Court ordered the permanent confiscation and disposal of the seized mobile handset after the careful removal of personal data.
Wagh was additionally directed to deposit a fine of ₹10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
These recordings are then manipulated in ways unimaginable and then distorted versions are posted on social media.Bombay High Court
The bench also expressed serious concern over the rising trend of unauthorised courtroom recordings by public.
“These recordings are then manipulated in ways unimaginable and then distorted versions are posted on social media,” the Court said.
The Court also reiterated that capturing such footage strictly violates the High Court's Rules governing live-streaming and recording of court proceedings.
The judges also observed that Wagh being a government employee, the onus on him to follow rules was higher than others.
“Wagh was sitting inside the courtroom in the absence of any case concerning him, being taken up by the Court. Wagh is working with a government department, and if that be so, the responsibility on him, not to indulge into such actions, was more onerous. We are not aware as to what was his motive/intention in indulging into such acts, as no reason is forthcoming much less acceptable,” the Court said.
Additional government pleaders BV Samant and AR Deolekar appeared for State.