Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Police Officer Who Laughed, Attended Call During VC Hearing

The Bombay High Court has denied relief to a Police Officer who allegedly laughed at the Judges and attended calls during Video Conferencing hearing.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quashing of a letter by which Trial Judge requested the DGP to frame Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) forgiving evidence through video conferencing to ensure maintenance of decorum in the Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, "Secondly, while recording the evidence, the Petitioner kept muting his microphone and was speaking with someone else in the room. When the Trial Judge admonished him not to speak to anybody while deposing, the Petitioner laughed. Despite repeated warnings by the Court to answer properly, he kept telling the APP that everything is written in the panchanama. The Trial Judge also found him to be answering his phone and when questioned he replied that he had to answer the call of the Commissioner of Police......The aforesaid behavior of the Petitioner prima facie clearly reeks of insolent conduct on his part. The High Court and the Trial Court have laid down Rules for conduct of hearing through the medium of video conference. The mere fact of being permitted to appear and depose from the comfort and convenience of his office definitely did not allow him to take the Court proceedings casually."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rizwan Merchant while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor V. B. Konde Deshmukh.

Facts of the Case

The impugned letter was prompted by improper conduct of the Petitioner while giving evidence through video conferencing, by way of a mobile phone in a trial before the Trial Court.

Counsel for the Petitioner appeared before the Trial Court from his office chambers and while recording his evidence and when one constable tried to enter the chamber without knocking, the Petitioner immediately raised his hands to stop him. This fact, he contended was noted by the Judge and the Petitioner immediately apologized to the Court. However, to his surprise, later he received a show-cause notice seeking an explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for contempt of Court.

It was submitted that the Petitioner was on duty in supervising arrangements for ‘Coldplay Concert’ which was expected to be attend by a huge crowd and was marked as ‘sensitive’ and ‘serious’ from the point of view of security.

Reasoning By Court

The Court after analysis of the facts presented in letter was of the view that Petitioner's behaviour was in-fact impudent.

"Recording of evidence is a crucial part of a trial. In fact, the Petitioner’s evidence was highly significant considering that he was the Investigating Officer in the case. The annoyance of the District Judge depicted in the impugned letter cannot be considered as exaggerated or misconceived. The manner in which the Petitioner conducted himself during the proceedings is sure to cause some obstruction in the administration of justice and affect the proceedings in the trial. In any case, a request by the Trial Judge to the Petitioner’s superior Officer to frame SOP’s for the investigating agencies in giving evidence through video conference does not imply any personal vendetta of the Trial Judge against the Petitioner, as alleged by him," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Bramhanand Raosaheb Naikwadi vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AS:17424-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner- Advocate Rizwan Merchant, Advocate Rajabhau Chaudhari

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor V. B. Konde Deshmukh

Click here to read/ download Order