Recording Court Proceedings Without Written Permission Is Expressly Barred: Bombay High Court Confiscates Violator's Phone
The Bench noted that the government employee's conduct warrants contempt action; accepted apology but said that it "cannot be unconditional", imposed Rs 10,000 cost.
The Bombay High Court has held that video recording of court proceedings is expressly barred without prior written permission, and warrants action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in addition to action under the High Court's Rules on live-streaming and recording. Acting suo motu, the Bench ordered the mobile phone of a government employee caught recording a hearing to be confiscated and directed him to pay Rs 10,000.
It noted that he deleted the video from his phone, and said that the deletion showed the respondent knew he was not permitted to record, and that his government employment made his responsibility more onerous.
The Court accepted the respondent's apology but held that it cannot be unconditional, as Rules 9.2 and 9.3 were squarely attracted. It warned that any recurrence will invite contempt proceedings. It added that the public is welcome in open court but must follow the rules "in letter and spirit".
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “We may state that except for a written permission being granted, there is an express bar to record Court proceedings under the Rules framed by the High Court. We may refer to the Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings…We are thus of the considered view that we would be failing in our duty if we overlook the requirement of the Rules and the law, by not taking action as mandated by the Rules against Shri. Vilas Wagh. Such conduct of Shri. Vilas Wagh also imminently warrants an action to be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”.
“Unfortunately, such instances are on the rise, when persons by different measures without prior permission record Court proceedings. These recordings are then manipulated in ways unimaginable and then distorted versions are posted on social media. In fact, it has become quite rampant… We may state that except for a written permission being granted, there is an express bar to record Court proceedings under the Rules framed by the High Court. We may refer to the Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings… There cannot be any objection for any member of the public to attend the Court and witness the Court proceedings, as they are open proceedings. However, certainly, restrictions on any member of the public to adhere to the rules and regulations governing the Court proceedings, when inside the Courtroom, need to be followed in letter and spirit. This is the least, that can be expected from any person witnessing the Court proceedings.”, the Bench noted.
B.V. Samant, Additional GP appeared for the State while the respondent appeared in person. Prajakta Dhane, Deputy Registrar, E-Court Project was also present in the Court.
“…We may hasten to add that on many occasions the Court may not even be aware of any such recording taking place, and only when clips of such video recording start circulating in the social media, such unauthorized actions would get noticed for actions to be taken, if the content is in any manner objectionable. We are of the firm view, that things need to be prevented from reaching such stage…”, the Bench added.
At about 12:23 p.m., the Bench noticed a person in the last row holding a mobile phone with its flash on, and court staff seized it. He identified himself as Dilip Wagh, of the Education Inspector's office, and said he had come to meet the Government Pleader in another matter. He was later found to be Vilas Shamrao Wagh. He deleted the recording when apprehended, but the Court's IT Department recovered it from the deleted items.
The Court registered the matter as High Court on its Own Motion (ST) No. 29396 of 2026, In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings. Asked whether he had written permission from the Registry, the respondent admitted he had none.
“We may also observe that the doors of the 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, there cannot be any doubt that all such persons attending Court proceedings need to abide by the basic norms and conduct themselves responsibly so as to maintain the elementary etiquette and adherence to the relevant Rules in attending the Court proceedings and respecting its solemnity and sanctity, which they do normally”, the Bench said.
“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. We also cannot imagine, and do not know the motives in doing so. We need not know…”, the Bench noted futher.
The Court directed seizure and confiscation of the handset, with personal data removed in his presence, certified, and handed back under a panchanama by the Registrar (Judicial-I) with an IT officer. The phone is then to be disposed of as per law.
Cause Title: High Court on its Own Motion v. Shri Vilas Shamrao Wagh (Suo Motu (ST) No. 29396 of 2026).
Appearances:
State: B.V. Samant, Addl. GP, A.R. Deolekar, AGP.
Respondent: Respondent appeared in Person and Prajakta Dhane, Deputy Registrar, E-Court Project.