Gujarat High Court closed contempt proceedings against Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna, seen sipping beer during a virtual hearing. The court accepted his unconditional apology, calling the act unintentional.
Ahmedabad: Today, on July 22, the Gujarat High Court officially closed the contempt of court case against Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna, who was earlier caught on video sipping beer during a virtual court hearing.
The video, which had gone viral, showed Tanna drinking from a beer mug while appearing before Justice Sandeep Bhatt on June 26 during an online court session.
A division bench comprising Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani decided to drop the contempt proceedings after reviewing a report from the court registry and considering Tanna’s repeated apologies. The court acknowledged that while the act was contemptuous, it was not done intentionally.
The bench observed,
“Shri Tanna has tendered unconditional apology and the act has occurred due to an error in operating the system. He says he upholds the dignity and majesty of the court and he has 52 years of practice before this institution and has also been conferred the designation of Senior Advocate since 1995. From the report prepared by the registry and on the overall appreciation of facts, and the reading of affidavit of unconditional apology, we find that the contemptuous act was committed through an error and Shri Tanna had no intention to wilfully lower down the majesty of this court.”
The court decided to accept the senior lawyer’s apology and chose not to pursue further action.
“We accept the unconditional apology tendered by Shri Tanna. Learned Senior Advocate Tanna says such an act will not be committed in future,”
the bench noted in its final order.
The incident gained public attention after the video clip circulated online, prompting the High Court to take suo motu action. On July 1, the bench had initiated contempt of court proceedings, following which the court registered the case and summoned Tanna.
During the hearing, Tanna humbly admitted to his mistake and explained that it was a result of a technical error while using the video conferencing software.
He had been trying to exit the virtual courtroom but mistakenly pressed the wrong button, which led to his camera being turned on, unintentionally showing him sipping beer.
Tanna said in court,
“I would request that it should be put an end to. Such errors happen whether we like it not. Reflexes are not as fast. If it was not wilful, would it amount to.. I can’t defend. But I went to the learned single judge and circulated my unconditional apology. My request would be pardon me.”
He further expressed his displeasure at being compared to another person who had attended a virtual hearing from a toilet, saying,
“It is a blot. I can’t be compared to the man who has taken it there (toilet).”
Earlier, on July 1, Tanna had already appeared before the division bench and presented a sincere apology, stating,
“I am apologising. I came to know about the circulation of (unclear) and the order of the court (initiating contempt proceedings). I am unconditionally apologising and my request is whatever punishment you want to give, I will accept. I am full responsible for that error. Error happened because of technical breach. Now I don’t want to defend. I am guilty and I should be punished but I must say that while I unconditionally apologise, there was no intent. I will explain why it happened. Instead of pressing ‘going out of the court’ button, I pressed another button and my matter was not going on. I wanted to close it (the VC call) but instead of ‘A’, I pushed ‘B’ and that is why it happened for 15 seconds. It is my error and I must take responsibility but court may not carry an impression that I have done it intentionally. So at the first available opportunity, I came here to say I apologise. I plead guilty. It is an error of 15 seconds. If it can be put an end to, I will be grateful.”
The next day, on July 2, Tanna also personally met and apologised to Justice Bhatt, before whom the video conference error had occurred.
Tanna explained that he was waiting for his turn in another case and in the process of exiting the platform, he accidentally pressed the wrong button, which resulted in him being seen sipping beer on the screen.
With a career spanning over five decades and the status of a designated Senior Advocate since 1995, Tanna maintained that the incident was completely unintentional and stemmed from a genuine mistake while handling the technology.
The High Court acknowledged the explanation, accepted the apology, and chose to bring the matter to a close without imposing any penalty.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rape
