Unconditional Apology for 'Technical Glitch' During Live Stream Sufficient to Close Contempt Proceedings Under Rule 5(j): Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court Closes Contempt Proceedings Against Senior Advocate for Inadvertent Live Stream Incident

Ahmedabad, India – The Gujarat High Court has closed suo motu contempt of court proceedings against Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna, accepting his unconditional apology for an "unintended error" that occurred during a virtual court session. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R. T. Vachhani ruled that the act was not willful and pardoned the advocate, taking into account his distinguished 52-year career at the Bar.

---

Background of the Case

The contempt proceedings were initiated after a short video clip, lasting 10-15 seconds, from a virtual court hearing presided over by another judge was circulated on social media. The clip showed Mr. Tanna engaged in an activity later explained as consuming an Ayurvedic drink. This incident raised concerns about a potential violation of Rule 5(j) of The Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021, which mandates that participants maintain the utmost decorum to uphold the dignity of the Court.

Recognizing the potential to undermine the "glory and dignity of the Institution," the High Court initiated suo motu (on its own motion) contempt proceedings against the senior counsel.

Advocate's Unconditional Apology

In response, Mr. Tanna promptly appeared before the court and submitted two affidavits tendering an "unconditional apology." He argued that the incident was not intentional but the result of a "technical error/glitch" while operating his tablet.

In his affidavit, Mr. Tanna explained the context:

"I was advised to have before taking food, Ayruvedic Kawths and Kashayas (liquids) which are queer and bitter in taste and therefore, I had to add huge quantity of lime juice and drink the same... while closing my tablet, video went on and audio was not on for few seconds, it seems possibly video button was pressed by еrror."

He emphasized his profound respect for the judiciary and stated that in his 52-year career, including 30 years as a designated Senior Advocate, there was never any intention to show "outrageous and glaring conduct."

Court's Reasoning and Acceptance of Apology

The Division Bench carefully considered the report prepared by the High Court Registry and the contents of Mr. Tanna's affidavits. The Court acknowledged its previous observation that any act denting the dignity of the institution, if disregarded, would be "destructive to the rule of law."

However, upon review, the judges found the apology to be sincere and the act to be unintentional. The Court's order highlighted key factors in its decision:

"From the report prepared by the Registry and considering the overall appreciation of the facts and the reading of the affidavits of the unconditional apology, we find that the contemptuous act was committed through an error and Shri Tanna had no intention to willfully lower down the majesty and dignity of this Court."

The Bench gave significant weight to the advocate's long and unblemished career, noting his "distinguished service at the Bar."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that there was no "willful intent behind the act," the High Court accepted the unconditional apology and deemed it appropriate to close the proceedings. The order stated:

"Therefore, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by Shri Tanna, there does not appear to be any willful intent behind the act and looking to his distinguished service at the Bar, this Court deems it appropriate to close the present suo motu contempt proceedings."

This judgment underscores the judiciary's expectation of decorum during live-streamed proceedings while also demonstrating its willingness to exercise discretion when an infraction is deemed unintentional and is met with a sincere apology, especially from a senior member of the Bar with a long-standing reputation