Silence in the Court: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty for Illicit Recording

In an stern reminder regarding the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Bombay High Court has taken decisive action after a visitor was discovered audio recording court proceedings without authorisation. Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata presided over the matter, transforming a routine civil writ petition hearing into a significant lesson on courtroom protocol.

An Unauthorised Interruption

During the hearing of Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel v. The Panvel Municipal Corporation & Ors. , the proceedings were halted when court staff identified an individual capturing audio via a mobile device. Upon confrontation, the individual—identified as Mr. Sajid Abdul Jabbar Patel—admitted he was a relative of the respondents but openly acknowledged he had not secured the mandatory permission from the Court Registry to record the session.

In strict accordance with a long-standing directive issued on February 13, 2017, the court immediately ordered the seizure of the device. The phone was powered off and surrendered to the Registry for safe custody, marking a swift response to the breach of decorum.

The Cost of Contempt

Representing the respondents, Advocate H.S. Venegavkar acknowledged the gravity of the incident on behalf of his client's relative. While he requested leniency, emphasizing the defendant’s lack of prior history with such conduct, he offered a restorative solution. The individual committed to paying a sum of ₹1,00,000 as costs to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund .

The Court accepted this payment as a formal undertaking, granting the individual three days post-upload of the order to complete the transaction. The matter is now scheduled for February 5, 2025, to report compliance.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the court's zero-tolerance policy regarding the unauthorised documentation of hearings. The Bench’s decision highlights the necessity for transparency and privacy in judiciary, noting:

• "The concerned Court staff therefore confronted the said person... he was not granted any permission by the Registry of this Court to do the said audio recording."
• "Mr. Venegavkar fairly submitted that, the act of the said person cannot be justified."
• "The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court."

Implications for Future Proceedings

This incident serves as a stark warning to litigants and visitors alike: the courtroom is a space governed by strict rules of protocol. While the High Court demonstrated a measure of pragmatism by allowing a financial settlement, the incident clarifies that compliance with Registry guidelines is not optional. As courts across the country increasingly grapple with the digitisation of public life, this ruling reaffirms that the "right to observe" does not equate to the "right to record" without the express permission of the judiciary.