In a batch of writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court, a Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale took strong exception to the unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings by an advocate’s clerk, who was acting on the instructions of a junior advocate.
The Court noted that when it was in session, the Prothonotary and Senior Master, passing from the Court corridor, noticed that one person was recording the court proceedings. He immediately entered into the courtroom to bring this to the Court’s notice. It was noted that the person recording the proceedings was a clerk of an advocate and that he was doing the same upon instructions of the said advocate’s junior.
Expressing its surprise, the Court stated that the advocates are the first persons required to adhere to the court rules. It was also said that there is an express bar to record court proceedings under the High Court Rules, which applied to both live streaming and otherwise. The Court referred to High Court on its own motion v. Shri Vilas Shamrao Wagh (Suo Motu High Court on its Own Motion (Sr) No. 29396 of 2026) wherein a similar incident had happened and the Court had ordered confiscation of the mobile hand-set and imposed a fine.
The Court found that even though the advocate who had given the instructions was a junior at the Bar, he appeared to lack the basic training and etiquette, which is to be followed by an advocate. The Court stated that it could have initiated contempt proceedings and referred his case to the Bar Council, but refrained from doing the same.
However, the mobile handset was directed to be seized, confiscated and the entire data was to be deleted in the presence of the clerk and the advocate. The Court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master along with an IT officer to record a panchanama for the same and to dispose of the mobile by following the due procedure in law.
The clerk was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- and the junior advocate was directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai within two weeks. The Court clarified that any recurrence of such conduct by the junior advocate or by the clerk or any further violation of the prohibition against recording Court proceedings would be viewed with utmost seriousness and would invite appropriate proceedings as per law, including proceedings for contempt of Court.
Lastly, the Court directed the junior advocate and the clerk to file an undertaking stating that they would not indulge into such activities, failing which, the Court said that it would take an action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The proceedings will now be listed for compliance on 02-11-2026.
