Unauthorized recording of court proceedings constitutes criminal contempt as it interferes with the administration of justice, lowers the dignity of the court, and erodes public confidence in the judicial process.

Order

11/05/2026

During the course of hearing the arguments by the Court in these miscellaneous petitions, one Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman, R/o Village Diwali, Tehsil & Police Station Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan, was found recording the Court proceedings in his mobile phone without any permission. When he was caught red handed doing so, he attempted to delete some of the recorded Court proceedings. When he was called and asked that as to why he was recording Court proceedings, he told that he is Driver of Mr. Kamal Rathore, the petitioner, and in his case he was recording the aforesaid proceedings. The said act of Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman as well as Mr. Kamal Rathore amounts to Contempt of Court. This act constitutes a serious interference with Administration of Justice and also makes out a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971).

Even, Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 , clearly and expressly prohibits the recording of Court proceedings in any manner, as the said Rule lays down that there shall be no unauthorized recording of the proceedings by any person or entity.

Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman admitted before this Court regardingthe act of recording the Court proceedings by using his mobile phone.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arundhati Roy, In RE ; reported in (2002) 3 SCC 343 has held that:-

“3. The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself.”

This Court is satisfied that the contempt in the instant case is of such nature that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice.

In the considered opinion of this Court, recording of the Court proceedings, as indicated above, constitutes a contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also it lowers down the dignity of this Court.

Issue notice to Mr. Kamal Rathore as well as Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

In the opinion of this Court, apart from the above, the aforesaid act of Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman also amounts to intentionally causing interruption in the judicial proceedings.

The Registrar(Judicial) is, therefore directed to lodge a report against Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman.

The Registrar(Judicial) is further, directed to seize the mobile phone of Mr. Anil Suman S/o Dhanraj Suman and thereafter keep the same in a safe custody and direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (West) to take appropriate legal action against him.

The Registrar(Judicial) is also directed to place these matters before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice seeking direction to get these matters listed before appropriate Bench(excluding the present Bench).