The Bombay High Court has imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000 on a litigant for unauthorized audio-recording of court proceedings on his mobile phone. The division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata directed the individual to deposit the penalty amount in the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund within three days. The move underscores the court’s firm stance on maintaining decorum and preventing unauthorized documentation of judicial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred during the hearing of Civil Writ Petition No. 16293 of 2024, titled Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel v. Panvel Municipal Corporation & Ors. The case was listed for admission on February 27, 2025, when court staff noticed an individual recording the proceedings. Upon confrontation, the person identified himself as Mr. Sajid Abdul Jabbar Patel, a resident of Owe, Kharghar, Panvel, District Raigad, and a relative of Respondents No. 3 & 4.
The petition was filed by Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel, represented by Advocate Ajay S. Patil. The respondents were represented by Advocate Meet Sawant (for Respondent No. 1), Advocate H.S. Venegavkar along with Advocate Harsh Dedhia (for Respondents No. 3 & 4), and Assistant Government Pleader Savina R. Crasto (for Respondent No. 5 – the State).
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this instance pertained to the unauthorized recording of court proceedings, which is strictly prohibited under the Bombay High Court Registry Notice dated February 13, 2017. The rules clearly state that any form of recording or broadcasting of court proceedings without prior authorization is a violation of court decorum and may attract legal consequences.
Since Mr. Patel had not obtained any permission for the recording, his mobile phone was seized, switched off, and handed over to the court’s Registry. The legal question at hand was whether such unauthorized actions should be met with punitive measures and what kind of deterrence the court should impose to prevent future violations.
Court’s Ruling
During the hearing, Advocate H.S. Venegavkar, appearing for Respondents No. 3 & 4, conceded that Mr. Patel had acted without permission and that the act could not be justified. However, he requested leniency, emphasizing that this was the first such offense by Mr. Patel.
The bench acknowledged the admission but decided to impose a financial penalty to reinforce the seriousness of the violation. The court observed:
“Unauthorized recording of court proceedings is a serious matter that can compromise the sanctity of judicial processes. Such acts cannot be condoned.”
The court directed Mr. Patel to pay ₹1,00,000 to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund within three days, treating his commitment to pay as an undertaking given to the court.
To ensure compliance, the court listed the matter for a follow-up hearing on March 5, 2025, under the category “For Reporting Compliance”.
