Judgment

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

A reference has been received from the learned Single Judge to determine the following question:

“whether the unauthorized recording of the Court proceedings would amount to a criminal contempt?”

2. During the Court proceedings in CR-5878-2019 (O&M) titled as Ravjot Singh and another Vs. Amarpal Singh and others , the learned Single Judge observed that respondent-Ravjot Singh, Rohit Kumar Baggan and Gurvinder Singh were recording the Court proceedings on their mobile phones. Respondent-Ravjot Singh is one of the petitioner in the aforesaid civil revision and remaining two persons were stated to be his employees. The learned Single Judge got examined one of the mobile phone and found that live videography of the Court proceedings was recorded. The second mobile phone was also having a clip of Court’s videography though not related to said Bench. However, the third mobile phone could not be opened. The learned Single Judge observed that the occurrence is to be treated with extreme seriousness and would deem to be contempt of the Court, besides it also amounts to the obstruction in administration of justice. It was also observed that though under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it would be within the jurisdiction of the Court itself to enquire into the contempt, however, the aforesaid question was referred to the Division Bench for determination. As per the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice the reference was received by this Bench.

3. On 13.1.2022, the respondents-contemnors were present in the Court and the Coordinate Bench noticed that they have not denied the recording of the Court proceedings. However, they sought time to file reply and requested to take a lenient view in view of their purported ignorance.

4. Ravjot Singh-respondent-contemnors filed his reply by way of affidavit wherein he submitted that he never intended to scandalize or lower down the authority of the Court or to obstruct the process of administration of justice. He was not aware of the consequences of recording the Court proceedings and was under an impression that recording of the Court proceedings peacefully and without affecting the hearing of the case in any manner would not be an offence. He was not having any malafide intention or motive for recording the proceedings. He recorded the Court proceedings peacefully and as a layman without being aware of the serious repercussions. Now, he has understood that proceedings cannot be recorded without the permission of the Court. He tendered unconditional apology for his conduct and also gave assurance not to repeat such an act in future.

5. Rohit Kumar Baggan-respondent-contemnor submitted in his reply stating that he is employee in the Gas Agency of Ravjot Singh-respondent. He admitted that on the relevant day i.e. 15.11.2019, he attended the Court proceedings in CR-5878-2019 and submitted that Ravjot Singh was recording the Court proceedings on his mobile phone. He also tendered unconditional apology and prayed for lenient view and further submitted that he was not having any malafide intention to interfere or obstruct the process of administration of justice in any manner.

6. Respondent-contemnor-Gurvinder Singh also tendered unconditional apology in his reply and submitted that he did not record the Court proceedings though he was present alongwith Ravjot Singh in the Court on that day i.e. 15.11.2019. He submitted that he is a poor person and was not even aware that such recording is against law. He also submitted that he was not having any malafide intention to interfere or obstruct the process of administration of justice.

7. We have heard Mr. Ankur Mittal, Amicus Curiae and all the respondents-contemnors present in the Court.

8. Today the respondents-contemnors have also tendered unconditional apology and reaffirmed their ignorance as stated by them in their written replies. Ravjot Singh stated that he is one of the petitioner in the case whereas Rohit K