Court reiterates strict prohibition on recording without permission, accepts apology with conditions, and imposes penalty on government employee caught filming inside courtroom
In a significant suo motu action dated October 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court took stern measures against unauthorized video recording within its courtroom. Shri Dilip Wagh, an employee in the Office of the Education Inspector, was found recording the court proceedings on his mobile phone without prior written permission from the Court Registry, a clear violation of the Live-Streaming and Recording Rules framed by the Bombay High Court.
The incident unfolded during court proceedings at around 12:23 p.m. when the bench noticed Shri Wagh in the last row with his mobile phone's flash on, indicating that he was recording. Upon detection, court staff immediately seized his mobile handset, which was later examined by the Court's IT Department. Despite his attempt to delete the recorded clip, the deleted video was successfully recovered, confirming the breach.
The Court highlighted that court proceedings are open to the public, including litigants, lawyers, students, and the press, but emphasized that strict adherence to courtroom discipline, etiquette, and the rules governing recording is mandatory. The rules explicitly prohibit any form of recording, sharing, dissemination, or reproduction of court proceedings without prior written authorization from the Court.
Referring to the relevant provisions (Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Live-Streaming and Recording Rules), the Court reiterated that unauthorized recording is a serious offense warranting prosecution under the Indian Copyright Act, Information Technology Act, and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court also cited precedents from Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and Karnataka High Court, which have held unauthorized recording as contemptuous conduct and obstruction of justice.
Although Shri Wagh tendered an apology, which the Court accepted, it was not unconditional. To reinforce the seriousness of the offense and prevent recurrence, the Court ordered the confiscation of the mobile phone after removal of personal data in the presence of Shri Wagh and certified destruction of the device as per law. Additionally, Shri Wagh was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks, failing which the amount shall be recovered from his salary as arrears of land revenue.
The Court sternly warned that any further violation by Shri Wagh or others will invite stringent action, including contempt proceedings. The case was listed for compliance on October 19, 2026.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the sanctity and solemnity of court proceedings, warning citizens and government employees alike against unauthorized recordings that can compromise the administration of justice and public trust.
Bottom Line:
Court proceedings cannot be audio/video recorded without prior written permission of the Registry/Court; unauthorized recording inside courtroom violates Live-Streaming and Recording Rules, warrants seizure/confiscation of device, costs, and may also amount to contempt of court.
Statutory provision(s):
Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules (Bombay High Court), 9.2, 9.3; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Indian Copyright Act, 1957; Information Technology Act, 2000
High Court on its Own Motion v. Dilip Wagh, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991993
