Case at a glance: The Bombay High Court has confiscated the mobile phone of a government employee who secretly recorded court proceedings, directed him to deposit Rs 10,000, and warned that any recurrence will invite contempt. It held that the High Court's live-streaming and recording rules expressly bar recording without written permission.
During a hearing, the Bench noticed a man in the last row recording with his phone's flash on, and staff seized the phone. He first gave a different name and claimed to be from the Education Inspector's office. He was a government employee with no listed matter. He had deleted the recording, but the court's IT department recovered it, and he admitted he had no written permission.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does recording court proceedings without written permission violate the High Court's rules and warrant action?
Open Courts, Strict Rules
The Court relied on Rules 9.2(i) and (v) and 9.3(ii) and (iii) of the High Court's rules on live-streaming and recording, which bar unauthorised recording and use of recording devices and provide for seizure and prosecution. It said there is “an express bar” on recording without written permission, and deleting the clip showed he knew it was not allowed; his government post made his duty more onerous.
It noted that such clips are often manipulated and circulated on social media. Courts are open to the public, but the rules must be followed “in letter and spirit”. It referred to similar rulings of other High Courts and to Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel v. Panvel Municipal Corporation. It accepted his apology, but said acceptance “cannot be unconditional”.
What the Court Actually Held
- The handset is seized and confiscated; personal data to be wiped in his presence and certified before disposal according to law.
- He must deposit Rs 10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Authority, Mumbai within two weeks, failing which it will be recovered from his salary.
- Any recurrence will invite contempt proceedings.
- Compliance listed on 19 October 2026.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a strong warning against recording court proceedings.
- It applies the High Court's live-streaming rules strictly.
- It highlights risks of manipulated clips on social media.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Advocates and Litigants
- Do not record proceedings without written permission; advise clients and staff accordingly.
For Court Staff
- Act promptly on unauthorised recording and preserve evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Recording court proceedings without permission is barred.
- Phones can be seized and confiscated.
- Costs and contempt can follow.
- Apology does not mean no consequences.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not without written permission under the Bombay High Court's rules.
His phone was confiscated and he was directed to deposit Rs 10,000, with a contempt warning.
The Court accepted his apology but imposed conditions and warned of contempt for any recurrence.
Conclusion
The order protects the dignity of proceedings at a time when clips spread quickly online.
Practical takeaway: Keep phones away from recording in court; violations can lead to confiscation, costs and contempt.