Disciplinary action against an official who appeared before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by video conference from his bed has been ordered, with the Court calling his conduct contemptuous.
Jabalpur: Joining a contempt hearing on screen from bed, in an unbuttoned shirt and undergarments, has earned a Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Bhopal, a direction for departmental action from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which has also asked him to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him [GSB Construction v. Amit Kumar Gajbhiye].
The order was passed on October 27, 2026 by Justice Deepak Khot in CONC-3816-2026. Advocates Saket Upadhyay and Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay represented the petitioner firm, and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly with Advocate Akash Malpani appeared for the State.
Departmental action and a show-cause notice
The State has been directed to file a report on the disciplinary action within four weeks. Separately, the official must explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for his conduct during the hearing.
A show-cause direction is a preliminary step and records no final finding of criminal contempt.
What the order records
On October 9, 2026, the Court had told the official, Amit Kumar Gajbhiye, to file a compliance report or else appear before it in person. According to the order, he later joined the proceedings by video conference from bed during the morning session. The Court also described the order passed on the petitioner’s representation as “merely an eyewash”.
The Court held that his conduct was not in keeping with court decorum and was contemptuous. It recorded:
“guilty of misconduct and has committed the contempt of this Court.”
The Deputy Advocate General assured the Court that the matter would be taken up with the higher authority. Noting this, the Court directed that proper disciplinary action be initiated against the official.
The dispute behind the contempt case
The petitioner firm alleges that the local authorities failed to comply with the High Court’s directions to correct land-use records. It says its land is recorded as industrial although the Master Plan designates it as residential, and that a correction recommendation sent on October 3, 2025 by the Jabalpur Joint Director to the Bhopal Joint Director (IT) was instead treated as a request for change of land use. These are the petitioner’s allegations; the contempt proceedings arise from the alleged non-compliance.
On the underlying dispute, the petitioner must file a rectification application on the ALPASS portal, and the official must facilitate its upload and acceptance within seven days. The competent authority must then decide the application within four weeks of its upload. The matter is listed next on November 30, 2026.
Decorum in virtual courtrooms
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, conduct that scandalises or lowers the authority of a court, or interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings, can amount to criminal contempt. High Courts have repeatedly stressed that virtual hearings are court proceedings and must be attended with the same decorum as an appearance in the courtroom.
The present order applies that standard to a State official facing contempt for non-compliance, and pairs the contempt notice with a direction for departmental action.
Case Title: GSB Construction v. Amit Kumar Gajbhiye [CONC-3816-2026]
Bench: Justice Deepak Khot, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Saket Upadhyay and Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay for the petitioner; Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly with Advocate Akash Malpani for the State