Bombay High Court Seizes Phone After Advocate's Clerk Caught Recording Court Proceedings, Fines Both

The Bombay High Court recently ordered the seizure of a mobile handset and further imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate's clerk caught videorecording the court proceedings, purportedly on instructions of a Junior Advocate. The High Court also imposed cost of Rs 25,000 on the said Junior Advocate.

A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale in its October 19 order observed that "the doors of Court are open to one and all; to lawyers whose cases are listed or not; to junior lawyers; to students who are eager to attend the Court proceedings to learn and get enriched from their Court experience; to the litigants who are concerned with their Court proceedings or to the Press."

However, it cautioned that persons attending Court proceedings need to abide by the basic norms and conduct themselves responsibly and maintain the elementary etiquette.

In the case at hand, the Court recorded that while it was hearing a matter, the Prothonotary & Senior Master, Bombay High Court, who was passing from the Court corridor, noticed that one person was recording the Court proceedings.

"The Prothonotary & Senior Master immediately entered the Court-room so as to bring this fact to the notice of the Court...The recording of the Court proceedings was without any approval being obtained in a manner the law would mandate hence, illegally," the bench recorded.

The judges expressed surprise on the fact that an advocate had instructed his clerk to record the Court proceedings on his phone.

"We are really surprised. The Advocates of this Court are the first persons who are required to adhere to the rules of the Court. We may state that there is an express bar to record Court proceedings under the Rules framed by the High Court. The bar applies to both live streaming and otherwise," the judges said.

The judges, however, noted that the advocate was a junior at Bar and thus lacked basic training and the etiquette, which is to be followed by an advocate.

"Considering the position in law, we could have initiated contempt proceedings and referred his case to the Bar Council, we however refrain from doing so. The mandate of the law however would be required to be followed," the bench said while ordering the junior counsel to pay costs of Rs 25,000 to be deposited with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.

While ordering confiscation of the mobile handset and imposing costs of Rs 10,000 on the clerk, the judges made it clear that any violation further would be viewed with "utmost seriousness."

"Considering the seriousness, casualness and frequency of such instances happening, it is high time that actions as the law would mandate are taken by the Court," it said.