Recently, in a significant move concerning courtroom discipline and interference with judicial functioning, the Rajasthan High Court stepped in after a man was allegedly caught recording live court proceedings on his mobile phone during the hearing of criminal petitions before Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand. The Court treated the incident as a serious breach affecting the administration of justice and began examining whether the act amounted to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, while also scrutinising the misuse of electronic devices inside courtrooms in violation of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2020.
The controversy began when Anil Suman was allegedly found recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission during arguments in a batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions. According to the order, when confronted in open court, he allegedly attempted to delete portions of the recording before admitting that he was doing so on behalf of petitioner Kamal Rathore, for whom he worked as a driver.
The Counsel appearing in the matter were informed that Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing expressly prohibits unauthorised recording of court proceedings “by any person or entity.” The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arundhati Roy, In Re, to underline that contempt law exists to preserve public confidence in the judicial system.
The Court observed that the conduct was not a mere procedural lapse but a direct interference with the justice delivery mechanism. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked that, “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.” The Bench further held that recording court proceedings without authorisation “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.”
Consequently, the Court issued show-cause notices to both Kamal Rathore and Anil Suman, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a formal report, ordered seizure of the mobile phone for preservation of evidence, and instructed the concerned Station House Officer to take appropriate legal action.
Case Title: Kamal Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2479/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Advocate for the Petitioner: Kamal Rathore (in-person), Adv. Mahendra Kumar Meena
Advocate for the Respondent: PP Narendra Singh Dhakar, Adv. Amit Jindal, Adv. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. Saurabh Yadav
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :