The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a junior advocate and ₹10,000 on an advocate’s clerk after the clerk was found recording court proceedings on a mobile phone without authorisation. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale passed the order on October 19, 2026, while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
The Court also directed the seizure and confiscation of the mobile phone used for recording the proceedings. It required both individuals to submit undertakings promising not to engage in similar conduct.
Background
The incident occurred when the Bench assembled at 10 am to continue hearing the pending petitions. The High Court’s Prothonotary and Senior Master, A. H. Laddhad, noticed a person recording the proceedings while passing through the courtroom corridor and immediately brought the matter to the judges’ attention.
The person identified himself as an advocate’s clerk and stated that he had recorded the hearing on the instructions of a junior advocate. The recording had been made without the approval required under the High Court’s rules.
The Bench expressed surprise that members of the legal profession had been involved in conduct prohibited by the Court’s rules. It referred to Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Rules Governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which restrict unauthorised recording, sharing and transmission of courtroom proceedings.
The Court observed:
“We are really surprised. The Advocates of this Court are the first persons who are required to adhere to the rules of the Court.”
The judges noted that the rules prohibit the use of recording devices by persons who have not been authorised by the Court. They also referred to an earlier order concerning unauthorised recording, in which the High Court had ordered the confiscation of a mobile phone and imposed costs.
Considering the junior advocate’s position at the Bar, the Bench observed that he appeared to lack basic professional training and courtroom etiquette. Although it could have initiated contempt proceedings or referred the matter to the Bar Council, the Court refrained from taking those steps in the present case.
However, it made clear that the applicable rules had to be followed.
The Bench directed that the mobile phone be seized and confiscated. The entire data on the handset must be deleted in the presence of the concerned individuals, with the process certified by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and an officer from the IT Department. The device is to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The Court directed the clerk, Vijay Jethmaliya, to deposit ₹10,000 and the junior advocate to deposit ₹25,000 with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, Mumbai, within two weeks.
The Bench further directed both individuals to file undertakings that they would not engage in similar activities and warned that any recurrence could invite appropriate legal proceedings, including contempt of court proceedings.
