The Bombay High Court has ordered the seizure and confiscation of a mobile phone used to record its proceedings, and directed a junior advocate to deposit ₹25,000 as costs over the recording, which was made by an advocate’s clerk on the junior lawyer’s instructions. The Court held that the recording was made without approval required by law and was therefore illegal.
A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale passed the order on 19 October 2026 while hearing a batch of part-heard writ petitions against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
How the Recording Came to Light
The Court had assembled at 10 am to continue hearing the batch, in which Advocate Amogh Singh, along with Advocates Janay Jain and Ashwin Tripathi, appeared for the petitioners in two of the petitions.
While the Court was in session, the Prothonotary & Senior Master, Mr A. H. Laddhad, who was passing through the Court corridor, noticed a person recording the proceedings. He immediately entered the courtroom and brought this to the Bench’s notice.
The person stated that he was the clerk of an advocate and that he was recording the proceedings on the instructions of a junior of that advocate. The Bench recorded that “The recording of the Court proceedings was without any approval being obtained in a manner the law would mandate hence, illegally.”
Bombay High Court on Recording of Court Proceedings: Express Bar Under the Rules
Expressing surprise, the Bench remarked, “The Advocates of this Court are the first persons who are required to adhere to the rules of the Court.”
The Court said there is an express bar on recording Court proceedings under the Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings framed by the High Court, and that the bar applies both to live streaming and otherwise. It reproduced Rules 9.2 and 9.3, including Rule 9.2(v), which provides that no person shall use a recording device for recording or transcribing the proceedings other than those authorised by the Court. Rule 9.3 prohibits audio or video recording during proceedings and permits the Bench to direct seizure of the device.
The Bench also referred to a recent similar incident in High Court on its Own Motion v. Shri Vilas Shamrao Wagh, where the Court had ordered confiscation of the mobile handset and imposed a fine. It noted that in that order, the Court had observed that the doors of the Court are open to all, but everyone attending must abide by the relevant Rules and respect the solemnity and sanctity of the proceedings.
Court Refrains From Contempt, Bar Council Reference
On the junior advocate’s conduct, the Court observed that he “appears to lack the basic training and the etiquette, which is to be followed by an advocate.”
The Bench said that it could have initiated contempt proceedings and referred the matter to the Bar Council, but chose not to. However, it added that the mandate of the law would have to be followed.
Directions Issued
The Court directed that:
- The mobile handset be seized and confiscated, all data on it be deleted in the presence of the advocate and the clerk and certified as fully removed, with a panchanama recorded by the Prothonotary and Senior Master along with an officer from the IT Department. The handset is thereafter to be disposed of as per law.
- Shri Vijay Jethmaliya deposit ₹10,000 with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai within two weeks.
- The advocate deposit costs of ₹25,000 with the same fund within two weeks.
- Any recurrence of such conduct, or any further violation of the prohibition, will be viewed with utmost seriousness and invite proceedings, including for contempt of Court.
- The advocate and the clerk file an undertaking during the day that they will not indulge in such activities, failing which the Court would take action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The matter will be listed for compliance on 2 November 2026.
Case Title: Nagendra Lalchand Kanojiya vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. (with connected petitions)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 811 of 2024
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Date: 19 October 2026
