Rajasthan High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Against Litigant & Driver For Unauthorised Recording Of Court Proceedings On Mobile Phone

"Recording of the Court proceedings constitutes a contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also it lowers down the dignity of this Court," Rajasthan High Court, in a stern move to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, has initiated suo motu contempt action against a petitioner and his driver for unauthorisedly recording court proceedings on a mobile phone.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dealing with the incident on May 11, 2026, observed that such acts constitute a "serious interference with the administration of justice" and make out a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The incident occurred during the hearing of miscellaneous petitions involving Mr. Kamal Rathore. His driver, Mr. Anil Suman, was caught red-handed recording the arguments in the courtroom using his mobile phone without any permission from the bench. Upon being discovered, Suman reportedly attempted to delete the recorded footage to conceal the evidence before being questioned by the court.

The primary question before the court was whether the unauthorised recording of judicial proceedings by a litigant or their associate constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court also examined whether such conduct violates the specific prohibitions regarding the recording of proceedings laid down in the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020.

Unauthorised Recording Amounts To Criminal Contempt

The court took a very serious view of the surreptitious recording, noting that it was performed without any legal authority or prior permission. Justice Dhand emphasised that the act was not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive interference with the judicial process. The bench noted that the driver admitted to the act of recording the proceedings on his mobile phone when confronted.

"This act constitutes a serious interference with Administration of Justice and also makes out a prima facie case of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

Violation Of High Court Video Conferencing Rules

The court highlighted that Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, expressly prohibits any unauthorised recording. The bench observed that these rules are mandatory and any person or entity found violating them by recording court proceedings in any manner is liable for legal action.

"Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, clearly and expressly prohibits the recording of Court proceedings in any manner."

Necessity To Maintain Public Confidence In Judiciary

Citing the landmark Supreme Court precedent in Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002), the High Court remarked that the law of contempt exists to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. The bench observed that if such confidence is shaken by unauthorised interferences or disruptions, it could lead to disastrous consequences for the democratic set-up and society.

"If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself."

Directions For Police Action And Seizure Of Evidence

In view of the "serious nature" of the contempt, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to immediately seize the mobile phone of the driver and keep it in safe custody. Furthermore, the court ordered the Registrar to lodge a formal report against Mr. Anil Suman for intentionally causing an interruption in the judicial proceedings.

"The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to seize the mobile phone... and direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (West) to take appropriate legal action."

Recusal And Re-Listing Before Another Bench

Concluding the order, Justice Dhand directed that show-cause notices be issued to both the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Rathore, and his driver to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. To ensure impartiality, the judge directed the Registrar to place the matter before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice to get the case listed before a different bench.

The court held that surreptitious recording of proceedings lowers the dignity of the court and substantially interferes with the course of justice. By directing police action and seizing the device, the court underscored that courtroom decorum and statutory prohibitions against recording are non-negotiable.

Date of Decision: 11 May 2026