The Bombay High Court recently imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant who was caught audio-recording court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission. The decision was made by a division bench consisting of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata on February 27, 2025.
The case involved Sajid Abdul Jabbar Patel, a relative of one of the respondents in a property dispute. Patel was found using his mobile phone inside the courtroom during the hearing. The court staff identified that he was recording the proceedings, prompting immediate action.
"The concerned Court staff therefore confronted the said person. He informed the Court staff that he is a relative of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Upon a query by the Court staff, they were informed that he was not granted any permission by the Registry of this Court to do the said audio recording." - Bombay High Court Order
Court's Response and Legal Proceedings
Following the discovery, Patel's mobile phone was seized, switched off, and sent to the court registry for safekeeping. The court also noted that according to a notice issued by the Registry on February 13, 2017, unauthorized audio or video recording within court premises is strictly prohibited.
Read Also:- Bombay HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case Citing Minor’s “Sufficient Awareness” of Consensual Relationship
Advocate Hiten Venegavkar, who represented Patel’s relatives in the case, confirmed to the court that Patel had not been granted any permission to record the proceedings.
"Mr. Venegavkar fairly conceded to the fact that no permission was granted to the said person for audio recording the Court proceedings. He fairly submitted that the act of the said person cannot be justified." - Court Order
Venegavkar, however, requested the court to show leniency since it was Patel’s first offense. Acting on this, Patel voluntarily agreed to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund in Mumbai within three days of the order being uploaded on the official website.
The bench accepted this statement as an official undertaking and listed the matter for further compliance on March 5, 2025.
Advocate Ajay Patil appeared for the Petitioner.
Advocate Meet Sawant instructed by KP Law Associates LLP represented the Panvel Municipal Corporation.
Advocate Hiten Venegavkar and Harsh Dedhia represented the Private Respondents.
Assistant Government Pleader Savina Crasto represented the State.
Case Title: Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel vs Panvel Municipal Corporation (Civil Writ Petition 16293 of 2024)
