Bombay High Court Confiscates Mobile And Fines Junior Lawyer, Clerk For Illegal Courtroom Recording
The Court directed the clerk and a junior advocate to deposit costs of ₹10,000 and ₹25,000, respectively,
The Bombay High Court has ordered the seizure and complete data wipe of a mobile handset after catching a lawyer’s clerk illegally recording court proceedings without authorization.
The Court directed the clerk and a junior advocate, under whose instructions the recording was allegedly conducted, to deposit costs of ₹10,000 and ₹25,000, respectively, into the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.
While refraining from initiating contempt proceedings or referring the matter to the Bar Council, the Court underscored the lack of basic training and etiquette, reiterating that unapproved recording of court proceedings is strictly unlawful.
The Division Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale directed, "The mobile handset is directed to be seized and confiscated. The entire data from the hand-set be deleted in the presence of Advocate Shri Rutuparn Deo and Shri Vijay Jethmaliya and be certified to have been fully removed. The panchanama in that regard be recorded by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master along with the officer from the IT Department. Thereafter, the mobile handset be disposed of by following the due procedure in law..."
Advocate Amogh Singh appeared for the Petitioner
During the session, the Court 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 person identified was the Clerk of Advocate Amogh Singh, who stated that he was recording the Court proceedings under the instructions of one junior of Advocate Amogh Singh.
"The recording of the Court proceedings was without any approval being obtained in a manner the law would mandate hence, illegally", the Court noted.
The Court also highlighted another incident that had happened in another case when the Court, considering the position in law, had ordered confiscating the mobile handset as well as imposing a fine. It was added that similar action would be required to be taken along with the affidavit of undertaking to be filed by the concerned person.
The Court observed, "In these circumstances, considering that Advocate Rutuparn Deo is a junior at the Bar, however, he appears to lack the basic training and the etiquette, which is to be followed by an advocate. Considering the aforesaid 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 Court directed the clerk of the lawyer to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/-, with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.
The junior lawyer was directed to deposit cost of Rs.25,000/- with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.
Accordingly, the matter was listed for further date for compliance.
Cause Title: Nagendra Lalchand Kanojiya v. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 811 OF 2024]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Amogh Singh, Janay Jain and Ashwin Tripathi