The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has imposed significant financial penalties and ordered the confiscation of a mobile device after a lawyer’s clerk was caught recording court proceedings without authorization. In a strict disciplinary move, the division bench consisting of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale ordered the clerk, Vijay Jethmaliya, to pay ₹10,000, while the junior advocate, Rutuparn Deo, who allegedly instructed the recording, was directed to pay ₹25,000. These funds are to be deposited into the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund within two weeks.

The incident occurred during the ongoing hearing of a batch of petitions involving the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. While the court was in session, the Prothonotary and Senior Master noticed the illegal recording while passing through the corridor and promptly alerted the presiding judges. The device was identified as belonging to Jethmaliya, who admitted that he was acting under the direct instructions of his superior, Advocate Rutuparn Deo. This act, described by the court as a clear violation of established judicial mandates, prompted immediate concern regarding the sanctity of courtrooms and the professional conduct expected from legal practitioners.

Regulatory Breaches and Judicial Mandates

The court noted that the recording of proceedings is governed by strict, specific regulations—specifically rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the High Court’s rules regarding live-streaming and recording. These provisions state that no person or entity, other than authorized parties, is permitted to record, share, or disseminate proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that any unauthorized usage of such data constitutes an offense under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, the Information Technology Act of 2000, and could invite proceedings for contempt of court.

Rule 9.3 specifically prohibits the use of communication or recording devices to disrupt proceedings or relay information to non-participants, and it empowers the court to seize such devices when rules are breached. The bench expressed profound surprise that an advocate would facilitate such a violation, noting that legal professionals are expected to be the first to uphold courtroom decorum . "We are really surprised. The Advocates of this Court are the first persons who are required to adhere to the rules of the Court," the bench observed in its formal order.

A Culture of Courtroom Accountability

The judges utilized this incident to reiterate that while the court is an open forum for lawyers, litigants, students, and the press, this openness is conditioned upon adherence to institutional discipline. The bench highlighted that they do not object to the presence of observers, but they maintain a firm stance against activities that trivialize the solemn nature of the court. The ruling follows a recent, similar incident involving one Vilas Shamrao Wagh, where the court similarly ordered the confiscation of a mobile handset and the imposition of a fine, sending a signal that such "casual" violations of privacy and procedure will no longer be tolerated.

During the proceedings, the court expressed disappointment in the lack of fundamental training displayed by the junior advocate, Rutuparn Deo. While the bench noted that it had the authority to initiate formal contempt proceedings and refer the lawyer to the Bar Council for professional misconduct, it chose to refrain from doing so on this occasion. Instead, the court focused on the immediate correction of the conduct, emphasizing the necessity for an affidavit of undertaking from both the advocate and the clerk.

Ensuring Future Compliance

The court’s order is comprehensive, mandating not only the payment of fines but also the permanent deletion of all data contained on the seized mobile device. This process is to be supervised by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, in conjunction with IT department officials, to ensure that the integrity of the court’s digital environment is protected. A panchanama will be prepared to certify the complete removal of data, after which the device will be disposed of according to standard legal procedures.

The court made it clear that this decision serves as a final warning. Any future recurrence of unauthorized recording by either the clerk or the lawyer will be viewed with maximum severity, potentially triggering full-scale contempt of court proceedings. By holding both the legal professional and his assistant accountable, the court aims to ensure that its rules on digital conduct are not merely suggestive, but strictly enforced.

The matter is now listed for compliance on November 2, 2026. By this date, the court expects confirmation that the fines have been deposited into the designated welfare fund and that the formal undertakings, committing the parties to desist from such behavior, have been properly filed. This ruling underscores a broader judicial shift toward greater oversight of courtroom digital behavior, ensuring that technology serves the interest of legal transparency rather than undermining the decorum and confidentiality of judicial deliberations. The message from the bench is unequivocal: the courtroom is not an environment for unregulated recording, and the privilege of accessing public court sessions must be balanced with a disciplined adherence to the rules that safeguard the administration of justice.