The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against a senior government official after he appeared for a virtual court hearing in a state of undress, sparking a stern judicial rebuke regarding the necessity of maintaining decorum in the digital age. Justice Deepak Khot, presiding over a contempt petition, expressed profound disapproval when Amit Kumar Gajbhiye, the Joint Director of the Town and Country Planning department in Bhopal, joined the proceedings via video conferencing while visibly seated on a bed, buttoning his shirt, and dressed in his underpants.

The court’s observation came during the hearing of a matter involving M/S G.S.B. Construction , which had approached the court regarding a dispute over land use classification. Given the gravity of the official’s lack of professionalism, the court declared that his actions constituted a clear breach of judicial standards . "This conduct of the respondent-Contemnor is not according to the court decorum and contemptuous, therefore, this Court is compelled to observe that the respondent-Contemnor is guilty of misconduct and has committed the contempt of this Court ," the bench noted in its order.

The incident underscores the challenges courts face in transitioning to hybrid and virtual hearing models, where expectations of formality are sometimes conflated with the comfort of remote work environments. The court, emphasizing that the virtual courtroom remains an extension of the physical courtroom, issued a show cause notice to Gajbhiye, requiring him to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be formally instituted against him for his "unbecoming conduct."

Administrative Accountability and Disciplinary Oversight

In response to the incident, the Deputy Advocate General representing the State, Shri Swapnil Ganguly, assured the High Court that the administration would treat the lapse with the utmost seriousness. Following this assurance, the court directed that disciplinary action be initiated against the official, with a mandate for a detailed report to be submitted to the court within four weeks.

The incident adds a layer of administrative scrutiny to a case already marked by procedural frustration. Prior to the outburst of contemptuous conduct, the court had been examining a compliance report submitted by the respondent in relation to the petitioner’s request for a change in land use. The petitioner, M/S G.S.B. Construction, had sought the rectification of land records that erroneously labeled their property as industrial land, despite it being designated as residential under the Master Plan.

Procedural Hurdles in Land Use Rectification

During the examination of the records, the High Court observed that the official’s previous efforts to address the petitioner’s concerns were insufficient. Counsel for the petitioner drew the court’s attention to a critical document dated October 3, 2025, which evidenced that a recommendation to rectify the nature of the land had already been forwarded by the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning in Jabalpur to the Directorate in Bhopal.

The court characterized the subsequent compliance report provided by the respondent as "merely an eyewash," suggesting that the authority had failed to act on information that was already within their knowledge. By ignoring the established recommendation for correction, the department had caused unnecessary delay for the petitioner.

To resolve the impasse, the court has now directed the petitioner to utilize the ALPASS portal to formally apply for the rectification of land use. To ensure there are no further administrative hurdles, the court ordered the respondent to facilitate the uploading and acceptance of the application within seven days. Once filed, the authority is under a strict directive to reach a final decision on the application within four weeks.

Implications for Future Virtual Proceedings

The legal community is viewing this development as a significant reminder of the rigors required in the judicial process, whether conducted in-person or virtually. While technology has enabled the expansion of legal access through video conferencing, it has not altered the solemnity of the judicial environment. By mandating a disciplinary report and issuing a show cause notice for criminal contempt, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has signaled a zero-tolerance approach toward behavior that undermines the dignity of the justice system.

The case, which is currently scheduled for its next listing on November 30, 2026, serves as a test case for how government officials must interact with the judiciary in an era of digital integration. As the court awaits the compliance report on the land use rectification and the disciplinary action against the respondent, the legal and administrative spheres remain focused on the outcome of the contempt proceedings.

The court’s directive for a swift resolution on the land use matter, coupled with its firm stance on professional ethics, aims to bridge the gap between bureaucratic inaction and judicial enforcement. For the petitioner, the hope remains that the court’s intervention will finally break the cycle of administrative oversights that have stalled the project for over a year. Meanwhile, for officials and legal professionals alike, the ruling serves as an unambiguous warning: the courtroom, whether digital or physical, requires a standard of conduct that reflects the weight of the law.