The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has imposed significant financial penalties and mandated the confiscation of mobile devices after a junior advocate and a clerk were caught recording live court proceedings without authorization. The incident, which unfolded during the hearing of a batch of petitions involving the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, prompted a stern response from the bench, which emphasized that legal practitioners hold a primary responsibility to uphold the rules of the court.

The incident was discovered when the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court observed an individual recording the ongoing proceedings while walking through the court corridor. Upon being brought into the courtroom, the individual admitted to being a clerk acting under the direct instructions of a junior advocate involved in the legal proceedings. The court expressed immediate concern, noting that the act of recording was in direct violation of established norms, specifically the Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which prohibit unauthorized videography to protect the sanctity of the judicial process.

“We are really surprised. The Advocates of this Court are the first persons who are required to adhere to the rules of the Court,” the bench noted in its order. The court further clarified that such actions not only violate specific institutional rules but potentially constitute criminal contempt, as they interfere with the administration of justice. While the court acknowledged that the individuals involved could have been subjected to more severe legal action, including potential contempt proceedings and a referral to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, it opted for a punitive approach centered on financial accountability and mandatory data removal.

Unauthorized Recording During Judicial Hearings

The legal framework cited by the court, particularly rules 9.2 and 9.3, establishes an express bar against any form of audio or video recording within the courtroom without prior written authorization. These rules serve to maintain the privacy of participants, protect witnesses, and ensure that the court retains exclusive copyright over its proceedings. By attempting to film the hearing, the parties bypassed these protections, creating a risk of unauthorized circulation that the court is duty-bound to prevent.

The bench observed that the clerk’s behavior showed a lack of respect for the courtroom environment, noting that while the institution is open to the public, legal, and academic communities, this access is conditional upon adherence to basic etiquettes. “In fact, we welcome and would be least perturbed in the Court proceedings being witnessed by one and all. What is however, disturbing is the act of such person simply attending the proceedings and video recording the same for no rhyme or reason,” the court stated.

Strict Enforcement of Courtroom Protocols

In accordance with the directive issued by Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, the mobile handsets involved in the incident have been ordered to be seized and confiscated. The court has tasked the Registrar (Judicial-I) and the Information Technology department to ensure the complete removal of all data from the devices in the presence of the concerned individuals. A formal panchanama—a record of the evidence—will be drafted to certify the permanent deletion of the files before the devices are disposed of through the due process of law.

Beyond the physical confiscation of the equipment, the court has ordered substantial financial contributions to be made to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund. Shri Vijay Jethmaliya has been directed to deposit a sum of ₹10,000, while the junior advocate involved has been ordered to pay a penalty of ₹25,000. These payments are required to be made within two weeks, with the court stipulating that failures to comply will result in further recovery actions against the individuals.

Accountability and Professional Ethics

The court drew significant parallels between this incident and a recent case involving unauthorized recording by a government official, reinforcing its zero-tolerance policy toward such breaches. By referencing the case of High Court on its Own Motion v. Shri Vilas Shamrao Wagh , the bench signaled that the current ruling is part of a broader, consistent effort to maintain discipline within the court premises. The court’s refusal to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage was presented as a lenient measure, contingent upon the individuals filing a formal undertaking to cease such activities permanently.

The judges stressed that the legal profession demands a higher standard of conduct, particularly from juniors who are expected to undergo proper training in courtroom etiquette. The bench made it clear that any recurrence of such behavior would be viewed with the utmost seriousness, with the court prepared to invoke its full powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if similar violations occur in the future.

This incident serves as a stark reminder of the digital age’s challenges to judicial independence. As the court continues to modernize through live-streaming, the protection of the integrity of these proceedings remains a priority. The current directives are scheduled for a compliance hearing on November 2, 2026, where the bench will verify that the financial penalties have been paid and the mandatory undertakings have been filed. By taking this firm stance, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has signaled that the sanctity of its chambers is not to be compromised by the convenience or unauthorized curiosity of those who practice within them.