In a significant move to uphold the dignity and privacy of judicial proceedings, the Rajasthan High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against an individual caught recording court hearings on his mobile phone without authorization.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that such acts are not just a violation of rules but a direct interference with the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that recording proceedings without the express permission of the High Court undermines the authority and sanctity of the judicial institution.

The matter came to light during the hearing of a batch of criminal petitions titled Kamal Rathore v. State of Rajasthan. While the proceedings were underway, the Court noticed a man, identified as Anil Suman, using his mobile phone to record the live session.

When confronted by the Court, Suman reportedly attempted to delete portions of the recorded footage. Upon further questioning, he admitted that he was recording the hearing on the instructions of the petitioner, Kamal Rathore, for whom he works as a driver.

Taking a "serious view" of the conduct, Justice Dhand noted that the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2020, strictly prohibit any unauthorized recording of court proceedings. The Court stated that such actions constitute "criminal contempt" as they strike at the very functioning of the justice system.

"This Court is satisfied that the contempt in the instant case is of such nature that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice," the Bench remarked.

The Court further explained that recording without permission lowers the dignity of the Court and can be seen as an intentional interruption of judicial work.

Given the gravity of the situation, the High Court issued the following directions:

Show-Cause Notice: The Court issued notices to both Anil Suman and the petitioner, Kamal Rathore, asking them to explain why they should not be punished for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Seizure of Device: The Court ordered the immediate seizure of the mobile phone used for the recording. The device has been placed in safe custody to preserve the footage as evidence.
Police Action: The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to lodge a formal report against Suman. The Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station has been instructed to take appropriate legal action based on this report.

This order serves as a stern reminder to litigants and the general public that while courts are moving towards transparency and virtual hearings, strict protocols remain in place. Unauthorized recordings can lead to the misuse of court footage, misinterpretation of oral observations, and a breach of privacy for the parties involved.

The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear: the courtroom is a place of serious legal deliberation, and any attempt to treat it as a recording studio will face the full force of the law.