The Rajasthan High Court recently initiated contempt proceedings against a man who was allegedly caught recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission.

The incident took place before Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand during the hearing of a batch of criminal petitions. During the proceedings, a man identified as Anil Suman was allegedly found recording the hearing on his phone. The Court noted that when confronted, he attempted to delete parts of the recorded footage.

Upon questioning, Suman admitted that he was recording the proceedings on behalf of petitioner Kamal Rathore, for whom he works as a driver.

Taking a stern view of the matter, the High Court observed that the act was not merely a violation of court rules, but one that directly interfered with the administration of justice.

“This Court is satisfied that the contempt in the instant case is of such nature that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice,” the Court observed.

The Court referred to the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2020, which specifically prohibit unauthorised recording of court proceedings. It stressed that such actions undermine the dignity and authority of the judicial institution.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, recording of the Court proceedings... constitutes a contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also it lowers down the dignity of this Court,” the order stated.

The Bench held that a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was made out against both Anil Suman and petitioner Kamal Rathore.

Apart from contempt, the Court also noted that Suman’s conduct appeared to amount to deliberate interruption of judicial proceedings, warranting further legal action.

Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to Rathore and Suman asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

The Court further directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a formal complaint against Suman, while instructing the Station House Officer concerned to take appropriate legal action on the basis of the report.

It also ordered the seizure of Suman’s mobile phone, directing that it be kept in safe custody to preserve evidence related to the alleged recording.

During the hearing, Rathore appeared in person along with Advocate Mahendra Kumar Meena. Public Prosecutor Narendra Singh Dhakar and Advocate Amit Jindal appeared for the State, while Advocate Saurabh Yadav represented one of the respondents.