The Rajasthan High Court began contempt action against litigant Kamal Rathore and driver Anil Suman for secretly recording proceedings. It said such recording interferes with justice and “lowers down the dignity of this Court,” amounting to contempt proceedings.
The Rajasthan High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against a litigant, Kamal Rathore, and his driver, Anil Suman, after the driver was allegedly caught secretly recording courtroom proceedings on a mobile phone.
The order was passed by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on 11 May 2026, while hearing five connected criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Rathore and Manoj Kumar Meena.
The incident occurred in Justice Dhand’s courtroom in Jaipur during the hearing of the petitions. The Court noticed Anil Suman, a resident of Village Diwali in Tehsil and Police Station Atru, Baran district, holding up his mobile phone and filming the proceedings without permission.
When confronted, Suman tried to delete portions of the clips before the Court could inspect them. Asked why he was recording the hearing, he told the Bench that he was the driver of petitioner Kamal Rathore and that he was recording the proceedings in Rathore’s case.
The driver admitted before the Court that he had recorded the proceedings on his phone.
The Court noted that recording of High Court proceedings is expressly barred under Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, which provides that there shall be no unauthorized recording of proceedings by any person or entity.
The Court further observed that filming a sitting Bench without permission amounts to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which authorizes the High Court to punish acts that interfere with the administration of justice.
Holding that the conduct of both Suman and Rathore fell within the scope of criminal contempt, the Bench found that the act amounted to a serious interference with Administration of Justice and made out a prima facie case under the 1971 Act.
In essence, the Court treated the behavior as far more than a technical or procedural lapse citing that it was serious enough to disrupt proper judicial proceedings.
It further stressed that recording court proceedings without authorization weakens the authority and diminishes the dignity of the judicial institution.
It added,
“In the considered opinion of this Court, recording of the Court proceedings, as indicated above, 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,”
In arriving at this conclusion, Justice Dhand relied on the Supreme Court’s explanation in Arundhati Roy, In RE [(2002) 3 SCC 343] regarding why the law of contempt exists.
The Bench quoted the Supreme Court as follows,
“The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. 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.”
The High Court reasoned that secret recording of judicial proceedings undermines the dignity of the court and erodes public trust in the judiciary particularly for ordinary litigants who approach the system expecting a fair hearing.
The Bench observed that such recording interferes with the administration of justice and lowers the dignity of the Court.
The Court also held that the responsibility extended to Kamal Rathore, since Suman had told the Bench that he was recording the hearing specifically as Rathore’s driver and in Rathore’s case.
The Bench additionally noted that the driver’s actions amounted to intentionally causing interruption in judicial proceedings, which the Court viewed as a further wrong beyond contempt.
Accordingly, the Court directed that notice be issued to both Kamal Rathore and Anil Suman, asking them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. It ordered the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report against Suman, seize his mobile phone, and keep it in safe custody.
The Court also directed the Station House Officer of Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (West) to take appropriate legal action.
As the conduct in question occurred before the same Bench, the Court further instructed the Registrar (Judicial) to place all relevant matters before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, with a request to list them before an appropriate Bench excluding the present Bench.
Case Title: Kamal Rathore & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan (and connected matters)