Who films a hearing from the corridor, and on whose instruction? A clerk who said he acted for a junior advocate was caught on camera-phone, and over this unauthorised recording of court proceedings the Bombay High Court has seized the phone and fined the advocate Rs 25,000 and the clerk Rs 10,000.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has confiscated the mobile phone used to record its proceedings and imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on a junior advocate and Rs 10,000 on an advocate’s clerk, who had recorded on the junior advocate’s instructions. It chose not to initiate contempt proceedings or to refer the advocate to the Bar Council [Nagendra Kanojiya v. CEO, SRA and Others].
Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale, sitting as a Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions on slum rehabilitation, passed the order on October 19, 2026.
How it came to light
While a matter was being heard, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court noticed someone recording the proceedings from the court corridor, and walked into the courtroom to alert the Bench. The person was Vijay Jethmaliya, who said he was the clerk of Advocate Amogh Singh and was recording on the instructions of junior advocate Rutuparn Deo. No approval had been obtained, the Bench recorded, which made the recording unlawful.
Phone seized, costs paid into a welfare fund
Under the order, the handset is to be seized and confiscated, with its data deleted in the presence of the junior advocate and the clerk and a panchanama recorded. The clerk is to deposit Rs 10,000 and the junior advocate Rs 25,000 with the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, and each must file an undertaking that the conduct will not be repeated.
The Bench noted that it could have initiated contempt proceedings and referred the junior advocate to the Bar Council, but did not. Any repeat, it warned, may be viewed with utmost seriousness and could lead to contempt proceedings. It also criticised the junior advocate for lacking basic training in courtroom conduct and etiquette. Compliance is to be reported on November 2, 2026.
Rules 9.2 and 9.3, and a case from weeks ago
Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of the Court’s rules on live-streaming and recording of court proceedings, which bar recording without permission, were the basis of the order, along with an earlier decision in a similar case. That decision was only weeks old, from October 5, 2026, when the same Bench confiscated the phone of a man who filmed a hearing from the last row with his flashlight on and imposed costs of Rs 10,000, cautioning that a repeat could invite contempt proceedings.
Not only litigants any more
The Court’s zero-tolerance line on filming hearings now reaches members of the Bar and their staff, and not just litigants and spectators. By fining both the advocate who gave the instruction and the clerk who carried it out, and by preferring costs and an undertaking to contempt, the Court signals that recording is governed by its own rules and that responsibility lies with the advocate who directs it.
Case Title: Nagendra Kanojiya v. CEO, SRA and Others
Bench: Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: October 19, 2026
Appearances: Not recorded in the order