The Rajasthan High Court recently initiated contempt of court proceedings against a man who was caught recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission. [Kamal Rathore v. State Of Rajasthan]
The incident occurred before Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who was hearing a batch of criminal petitions. The individual, identified as Anil Suman, was found recording the proceedings without permission and attempted to delete portions of the footage when confronted by the Court.
On being questioned, Suman admitted that he was recording the hearing on behalf of one of the petitioners, Kamal Rathore, for whom he works as a driver.
Taking a serious view of the incident, the Court observed that the act went beyond a mere breach of rules and struck at the functioning of the justice system itself.
“This Court is satisfied that the contempt in the instant case is of such nature that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice,” said the Court.
The Court noted that such conduct was expressly barred under the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2020, which prohibit any unauthorised recording of court proceedings.
It further emphasised that recording proceedings without permission undermines the authority and dignity of the institution.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, recording of the Court proceedings, as indicated above, constitutes a contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also it lowers down the dignity of this Court,” it added.
The Court held that the actions of Anil Suman, as well as petitioner Kamal Rathore, made out a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (law against interfering with court proceedings).
In addition to contempt, the Court also observed that Suman’s actions appeared to amount to intentional interruption of judicial proceedings, warranting further legal action.
Accordingly, the Court issued show-cause notices to both Rathore and Suman, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
The Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a formal report against Suman. The Station House Officer of the concerned police station was directed to take appropriate legal action based on the report.
It further ordered that his mobile phone be seized and kept in safe custody to preserve evidence of the recording.
Rathore appeared in person, along with Advocate Mahendra Kumar Meena.
Public Prosecutor Narendra Singh Dhakar and advocate Amit Jindal represented the State.
Advocate Saurabh Yadav represented one of the other respondents.
[Read Order]