Back
Initiates Contempt Against Advocate for Unauthorized Recording
The has taken a firm stance against the unauthorised recording and broadcasting of court proceedings, issuing a notice to Advocate and barring him from participating in any court proceedings in the state through online or virtual mode until further orders. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. acted on a report from the Registry disclosing that the advocate had repeatedly uploaded videos of court hearings on his YouTube channel despite past warnings. The Court held that such conduct violates the mandated under the , and constitutes under .
The Trigger: Repeated Violations After Warnings
The proceedings were initiated after the Registry submitted a report alleging that Adv. Nedumpara had been recording and uploading court proceedings to his YouTube account and social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The Court noted with concern that the advocate had continued this practice even after being warned on multiple occasions. The two impugned videos were published under the titles “You be the judge. Cameras can't lie. to MSMEs. Watch full video on my YouTube and X” and “Cameras cannot lie. to MSMEs. You be the judge.” These titles, the Court observed, directly challenge the integrity of judicial proceedings, implying a and inviting the public to act as judge—an act that strikes at the very foundation of the court’s authority.
The Bench remarked: “It appears that the alleged contemnor had been unauthorisedly recording and uploading the court proceedings in the YouTube account in spite of repeated warnings in the past and being fully aware that such unauthorised recording and uploading is contrary to .” This underscores the deliberate nature of the alleged contempt.
Legal Framework:
The Court extracted Rule 3(9) of the 2025 Rules, which explicitly states: “The of proceedings conducted under these Rules shall be maintained by all Participants and persons present, and no broadcasting, photographing, publishing, recording, sharing or usage of such proceedings, either wholly or in part, shall be made except with the written permission of the High Court, Court or Forum.” This provision leaves no ambiguity—any recording or dissemination, even partial, is strictly prohibited without prior written consent from the concerned court.
The Court found that the videos in question contained recordings of proceedings of the and had been published on digital platforms without any such permission. The Bench noted: “The present videos, which appear to contain recordings of proceedings of this Hon'ble Court, have been published through YouTube and X without any such permission being obtained.” The violation was thus clear and flagrant.
Reference to ’s Interim Order
The Division Bench also relied on the recent interim order of the in , which has an overarching effect on the use of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings. The Apex Court directed: “As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of the audio-video recording(s) of the judicial proceedings on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission of the Secretary General of the of India or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts.” This direction reinforces the need for strict adherence to in virtual court proceedings across the country.
: A Deliberate Challenge to Court’s Authority
The Court did not mince words in characterising the advocate’s actions. It held that the titles of the published videos constitute within the meaning of , which defines as the publication of any matter that or tends to scandalise the authority of any court. By suggesting that “cameras cannot lie” and framing the proceedings as a “,” the videos were perceived as an attempt to undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
Despite the seriousness of the matter, the Court exercised restraint, noting that the alleged contemnor is an advocate of the court. The Bench stated: “Considering the fact that the alleged contemnor is an Advocate, we are not formally issuing a at this stage.” Instead, it directed that a notice be served on him returnable within one week. The matter is posted for further consideration on .
Immediate Consequences: Bar on Virtual Participation
One of the most significant immediate orders passed by the Court is the prohibition on the advocate’s participation in any court proceedings in Kerala through online or virtual mode until further orders. The Court directed: “The Department is directed to circulate this order to the Hon'ble Judges of this Court and District Courts for information. This order shall be immediately intimated to the Registrar (Computerisation)–cum-Director (IT) for compliance. The Registry shall also immediately communicate this order to the alleged contemnor.” This effectively restricts the advocate’s ability to practice before the and subordinate courts through the virtual platform, though physical appearance remains unaffected (subject to the contempt proceedings).
Implications for Legal Practice and Virtual Hearings
This case highlights the tension between the convenience of virtual hearings and the sacrosanct nature of judicial proceedings. With the widespread adoption of video conferencing in courts, especially post-pandemic, the risk of unauthorised recording has increased. The ’s stringent action sends a strong message that any breach of will be met with immediate and severe consequences, including contempt proceedings and restrictions on practice.
Legal professionals must now be acutely aware of the Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules in their respective states. The Kerala Rules, 2025, are a model of strict regulation, and similar rules are in place in many other High Courts. The ’s interim order in Harshita Grover further underscores that no one—least of all an officer of the court—is above these norms. The incident also raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of advocates when using social media to discuss ongoing or concluded cases. While an advocate has the right to free speech, that right cannot extend to compromising the dignity and of court proceedings.
The Road Ahead
The case (Cont.Cas.(Crl.) No. 8 of 2026) will be taken up next on , by which time the advocate must file his response. The Court has not formally issued a , but that possibility remains open if the contemnor fails to provide a satisfactory explanation or continues the alleged misconduct. The legal community will be watching closely, as the outcome could shape how courts across India deal with similar breaches in the future.
Ultimately, the has reaffirmed that the integrity of judicial proceedings cannot be compromised, and those who seek to broadcast them without authorisation do so at their own peril.
Cause Title:
