Recording Court Proceedings Without Permission: Bombay HC Confiscates Govt Employee's Phone

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed the seizure and confiscation of the mobile phone of a government employee who was caught video recording court proceedings without permission, and directed him to deposit ₹10,000 with the High Court Legal Services Authority. The court accepted his apology, but said that it cannot be unconditional, as the prohibition in the Rules on Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings was squarely attracted.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale took suo motu cognizance on 05.10.2026 in Suo Motu (ST) No. 29396 of 2026, titled "In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings", against Dilip Wagh, who works in the Office of the Education Inspector.

At about 12:23 p.m., while the court was in session, the Bench noticed a person in the last row holding a mobile phone with its flash on and suspected that he was recording. The court staff immediately seized the handset and sent it to the IT Department for examination. He identified himself and said he had no case in the court and had come to meet the Government Pleader in another matter. On being apprehended, he tried to delete the recording and in fact deleted the video, but the IT Department recovered it from the deleted items. He admitted that he had not obtained any written permission from the Registry.

The Bench observed that such instances are on the rise, with persons recording proceedings without permission and posting manipulated and distorted versions on social media. It noted that "it has become quite rampant". It referred to the order dated 27.02.2025 in Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel v. Panvel Municipal Corporation (Writ Petition No. 16293 of 2024), in which a Co-ordinate Bench seized the phone of a person recording audio and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000.

The court held that, except with written permission, there is an express bar on recording court proceedings under the High Court's Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings. It reproduced Rules 9.2 and 9.3, which bar any unauthorised recording, sharing or dissemination, provide that violations will lead to prosecution as per law, and allow the bench to direct seizure of the communication or recording device.

It also relied on other High Courts. In Court on its Own Motion v. Ravjot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2220, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that unauthorised recording of court proceedings is contemptuous and amounts to criminal contempt. That court relied on Ramkrishna Gowda v. Chairman Zee Television, AIR 2000 Kar 276, and Balakrishna Pillai v. Balachandran, (2001) 1 RCR (Cri) 281. The Bench also noted Kamal Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 3001, where the Rajasthan High Court found a prima facie case of criminal contempt against a man who tried to delete a recording.

The court stressed that any member of the public may attend open court proceedings, but they must follow its rules "in letter and spirit." It said the responsibility was "more onerous" on a person working in a government department, and that the video being found in the recently deleted folder showed he knew he was not permitted to record. It added that he behaved as if he was sitting in a garden or on the roadside, and that the court may often be unaware of a recording until clips surface on social media, which must be prevented. It said that it would welcome proceedings being witnessed by all, but that what is disturbing is simply attending and recording them "for no rhyme or reason".

The Bench held that it would fail in its duty if it did not take action as mandated by the Rules, and that the conduct also warranted action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, noting the apology, it accepted it, albeit not as an unconditional one, and passed the following order.

The court directed that the handset be seized and confiscated. The personal data is to be removed in his presence, certified as fully removed, and handed over to him, with a panchanama recorded by the Registrar (Judicial-I) along with an officer of the IT Department, after which the handset is to be disposed of by due procedure of law. He must deposit ₹10,000 with the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, Mumbai within two weeks, failing which the Head of Department shall recover it from his salary as arrears of land revenue.

The court made it clear that any recurrence or further violation of the prohibition will invite proceedings, including for contempt of court. The matter was listed for compliance on 19.10.2026 at 3:00 p.m.

Appearances:

For the State: Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader, with Mr. A.R. Deolekar, Assistant Government Pleader.

Also present: Ms. Prajakta Dhane, Deputy Registrar, E-Court Project, and the respondent, Mr. Dilip Wagh.

Case Title: High Court on its Own Motion vs. Shri Dilip Wagh, Suo Motu (ST) No. 29396 of 2026