Bombay HC serves contempt notice on law student for recording court proceedings

Monday, 1 October 2012 By Legally India Bar, Bench & Litigation

A Mumbai law college student was caught recording court proceedings on his mobile phone in the Bombay high court and was served with a contempt notice. The student had recorded his brother – an advocate arguing a property dispute opposite senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond and in the court of justice Kathawala.

He had recorded for 18 minutes before his phone was confiscated by a court-officer. Following the incident, only advocates will be allowed to carry phones inside courtrooms. Previously everyone was allowed to carry phones inside, but a Rs 500 fine could be administered on anyone caught using the phones inside courtrooms.

In January the Bombay HC confiscated the phone of a holidaying Illinois circuit court judge who was caught taking pictures of court proceedings [Mid-Day]

Bombay high court

Comments

Meerkat 1 Oct 2012, 12:22
+1 -0
Don't understand why Court proceedings cannot be recorded. Aren't Courts supposed to be open to the public?
Gunjan 1 Oct 2012, 15:12
+0 -0
The phone has become a nuisance.
Mareeskumar 1 Oct 2012, 16:02
+1 -0
[i][b][b][b]It's not good. . . . law students should fallow the court rules. . .THEN court is not a playing place so every mans give respect to judicial departments. . .[/b][/b][/b][/i]
A lawyer 1 Oct 2012, 16:42
+4 -0
In my view this is archaic. Courts should be the most transparent of all institutions because they finally decide questions effecting the citizens. In fact, if court proceedings are recorded, the parties shall be precluded from bringing disrepute to the court on the basis that a matter was decided arbitrarily on extraneous considerations etc. Moreover, availability of transcripts of court proceedings will help law students and aspiring advocates to train themselves in becoming better advocates. You can get the transcripts of the Supreme Court of the United States at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx. How does it offend the courts or the rule of law, I fail to understand.
A Law Student 2 Oct 2012, 13:18
+0 -0
It offends the fairness of trail, it makes trail prone to public, it makes it prone to "Trail by Media" which will eventually have some affect on the mental judging capability of the judges. Not every proceeding is also public nature, not every proceeding requires public to interfere, example, Divorce Case, Rape Case, Property Dispute etc, Adultery Case etc.
A Law Student 2 Oct 2012, 13:21
+0 -0
In United States, their constitution grants them a fundamental right to freedom of expression WITHOUT any limitations. Our Constitution is not so worded. Here, freedom of speech and expression is subject to restrictions. In some case, Supreme Court also held that "right to know" was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution [though it was related to elections], but the same is subject to limitations.
Yeah? 2 Oct 2012, 14:56
+0 -0
Tried recording proceedings in a US court?
Your internship at stake! 3 Oct 2012, 10:51
+0 -0
[quote name="A Law Student"]In United States, their constitution grants them a fundamental right to freedom of expression WITHOUT any limitations. Our Constitution is not so worded. Here, freedom of speech and expression is subject to restrictions. In some case, Supreme Court also held that "right to know" was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution [though it was related to elections], but the same is subject to limitations.[/quote]

How is "right to freedom of expression WITHOUT any limitations" connected with RECORDING of court proceedings?? Please elaborate.
nt mine, ur intrnshp at stake 3 Oct 2012, 12:05
+0 -0
[quote name="Your internship at stake!"][quote name="A Law Student"]In United States, their constitution grants them a fundamental right to freedom of expression WITHOUT any limitations. Our Constitution is not so worded. Here, freedom of speech and expression is subject to restrictions. In some case, Supreme Court also held that "right to know" was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution [though it was related to elections], but the same is subject to limitations.[/quote]

How is "right to freedom of expression WITHOUT any limitations" connected with RECORDING of court proceedings?? Please elaborate.[/quote]

Elaboration -

What is one doing when one is recording? Right to Freedom of Speech of Expression not only includes a dictionary meaning of speech and expression, but is also includes "right to receive information", or "right to know" [See: State of U.P v. Raj Narain ]. Now, when one is recording, one is receiving some sort of information. Here, one is recording. It can further be broken down into two stages, receiving and thereafter storing . Without receiving it, you cannot store it. Hence, it is covered under the ambit of Article 19(1)(a). Moreover, it is also a form of "expression" if looked carefully. Without expression, how will one record it? It is only
a matter of interpretation, and I will assume you to be aware at least of the fact that, very often, pure strict interpretation has not been adopted by the courts in India
Blaskowicz 2 Oct 2012, 13:38
+0 -0
Alas, it is not a question of personal views, but the rules of the court. As such, when youre in court, you should follow the rules. Campaign as much as you want against it, outside.
Commenting is closed for this article.