Caught in the Act: Rajasthan HC Slaps Contempt Notices Over Secret Court Recording

In a dramatic courtroom showdown, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench took decisive action against unauthorized recording of proceedings. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand issued show-cause notices to petitioner Kamal Rathore and his driver Anil Suman for allegedly capturing the hearing on a mobile phone, deeming it prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

From Petition Hearing to Contempt Flashpoint

The incident unfolded during arguments in multiple connected criminal miscellaneous petitions: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 2479/2022, 5894/2022, 796/2023, 2155/2026, and 2417/2026 . These were filed by Kamal Rathore (son of Danna Lal/Dhannalal Rathore) and Manoj Meena/Manoj Kumar Meena (sons of Babulal Meena) against the State of Rajasthan . Rathore appeared in-person , alongside advocate Mahendra Kumar Meena, while the state was represented by public prosecutors.

As the court heard submissions, Anil Suman—identifying himself as Rathore's driver from Village Diwali, Tehsil & Police Station Atru, District Baran—was caught red-handed recording the proceedings. He attempted to delete files but admitted to the act, claiming it was for Rathore's case.

No Room for Arguments: Court Spots Violation on the Spot

This order wasn't a response to presented arguments but an immediate judicial intervention. No formal submissions from the parties on the recording were noted; the court independently identified the breach during the hearing. Rathore and Suman's involvement was linked directly—Suman as the recorder, Rathore as the beneficiary and petitioner.

The court referenced Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 , which expressly prohibits any unauthorized recording by persons or entities.

Drawing from Precedent: Echoes of Arundhati Roy

Justice Dhand invoked the Supreme Court's ruling in Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002) 3 SCC 343 , quoting:

“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 precedent underscored how such acts erode judicial dignity, making the violation here a serious interference with the administration of justice .

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

The judgment pulled no punches with these pivotal quotes:

"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."

"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."

"Recording of the Court proceedings... 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 ."

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

Media reports echoed this, noting the court's view that the actions not only disrupted justice but diminished courtroom prestige, aligning with Hindi coverage emphasizing "न्याय प्रशासन में गंभीर हस्तक्षेप" (serious interference in justice administration).

Hammer Falls: Notices, Seizure, and Police Action

The court ordered:
- Show-cause notices to Rathore and Suman—why contempt proceedings shouldn't start.
- Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a report against Suman for intentionally causing interruption in proceedings, seize his mobile, and secure it.
- Station House Officer, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur City (West) to take legal action against Suman.
- Matters transferred to the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench (excluding the present one).

Dated 11/05/2026 , this ruling reinforces courtroom sanctity amid rising concerns over digital intrusions. It signals zero tolerance for breaches that could undermine public trust in the judiciary, potentially setting a precedent for handling similar violations in virtual or physical hearings.

For litigants and observers, the message is clear: phones in court are for silence, not surveillance.