Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ
SUO MOTU – Appellant
Versus
SAMAD ABDUL REHMAN SHAH – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO. 12821 of 2025
For the Applicant(s): LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420), MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335)
For the Respondent(s): MR. DHRUVIN U MEHTA(9993)
The absence of intent does not exempt an individual from contempt of court if their actions undermine the court's dignity, as emphasized by the court's ruling on community service.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act - Section 2 (c) - Conduct during live streaming court proceedings - Contemnor deposited Rs.1,00,000/- and tendered an unconditional apology for attending court proceedings from a toilet, lowering the majesty of the court - Court acknowledges apology but emphasizes no defense exists based on lack of intent - The act, although not with mens rea, interferes with judicial procedures, thus is deemed criminal contempt. (Paras 3, 5 and 6)
(B) Community Service - The contemnor is directed to perform community service at a local Kendra for 15 days post-apology submission, reinforcing the need for respect towards court decorum and authority. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The conduct leading to contempt proceedings involved attending court via a toilet during live streaming, reflecting disrespect. Court considers the seriousness of the action, emphasizing that intent does not mitigate contempt.
Findings of Court:
Contemnor has shown remorse and is willing to undertake community service, leading to closure of contempt proceedings with a fine.
Issues: The central issue addressed is the impact of the contemnor's conduct on the authority of the court and the necessity of maintaining decorum in virtual court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that irrespective of intent, actions lowering court dignity are contemptuous and must be treated with seriousness, emphasizing community behavior in legal proceedings and the expectation of professional decorum.
Result: Contempt proceedings closed with directives for community service and warning.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conduct during live streaming and community service directive. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. emphasizing the seriousness of contempt despite lack of intent. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. the necessity of maintaining decorum in court proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta has submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 30th June, 2025, the Registry has already framed the necessary instructions for regulating video conference, hybrid hearing and live streaming and the same are placed before the Full Court for approval. It is submitted that the observations made in the report would be subject to final decision of the Full Court. The report dated 15th July, 2025 is ordered to be taken on record.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 14th July, 2025, the respondent – contemnor has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court. We had initiated suo moto contempt proceedings for the egregious conduct of attending the live streaming court proceedings from a toilet.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Rahul Patel has tendered an affidavit dated 21st July, 2025 of the contemnor tendering an unconditional apology. The said affidavit is ordered to be taken on record. The contemnor - Samad Shah has stated that he realizes his mistake and is ashamed of his conduct and he holds utmost respect for the majesty and authority of this Court. Further, it is stated that the Court may take sympathetic view and forgive him for the said act. The act, for which the present proceedings were registered, indubitably, is an act, which lowers the majesty and sanctity of this Court. The offending act committed by the contemnor, though inadvertently, is of such a high degree that it cannot be ignored. It was contended that there was no ill intention on behalf of the contemnor to commit such an act. However, we are of the opinion that the proof of mens rea is excluded, while judging the contemptuous act. No defense is available to the contemnor to plead that such a nature of the act, which lowers down the majesty of the Court, can be ignored only for the reason that he had no intention or mens rea to commit such an act. The act committed by the contemnor has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and also tends to lower the authority and majesty of this Court and in fact, is a “criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act . However, since the contemnor has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as prescribed under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1994, and in view of the unconditional apology and his willingness to undertake community service, as per the discretion of this Court, we close the contempt proceedings.
4. Registry shall deposit/transfer the cost amount to the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. We further direct that the contemnor shall undertake the community service by attending the intellectually challenged individuals at ‘Mamta Mansik Swastha Kendra, Surat at Nagar Prathmik Shala No.7, Adarsh Nagar Society, Opp.Municipal Zone Office, Athwa Lines, Surat for a period of 15 days. The Superintendent or the Officer In-charge of the concerned Institute shall allow the present contemnor to do the communicative service for two hours daily for 15 days and upon completion of the said period, the Superintendent / the concerned officer shall inform the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Surat.
5. Registry shall also send the present order to the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Surat, in order to see that the contemnor complies with the direction issued by this Court. After completion of community service, the DLSA, Surat shall send a Report to the Registry, which in turn shall inform this Court. We further issue warning to the contemnor not to indulge in such indecent behaviour during live Court
