Rajasthan High Court directs seizure of driver’s phone; issues contempt notice over unauthorised recording of court proceedings

Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.

Rajasthan High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., issued notice to the petitioner, a litigant, and his driver to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them as in the case at hand, the driver was found recording the Court proceedings, in the petitioner’s case, in his mobile phone without any permission.

Further, the Court directed the Registrar to seize the driver’s mobile phone.

Also read: Supreme Court Extends ‘A Final Act of Forgiveness’ to Senior Advocate Yatin Oza; Suspends His Contempt Conviction

In the present case, during the arguments by the Court in miscellaneous petitions, one person was found recording the Court proceedings in his mobile phone without any permission and upon being caught, he attempted to delete some of the recorded court proceedings.

When he was called and asked that as to why he was recording court proceedings, he said that he was petitioner’s driver and, in his case, he was recording the proceedings.

The Court held that the act of petitioner’s driver amounted to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and it constituted serious interference with administration of justice.

Further, the Court stated that Rule 3(vi), Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 also clearly and expressly prohibited the recording of court proceedings in any manner.

The Court opined that “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 the dignity of this Court”. Further, the Court stated that the conduct of petitioner’s driver also amounted to intentionally causing interruption in the judicial proceedings.

Thus, the Court issued notice to the petitioner as well as his driver to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Further, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a report against the petitioner’s driver and to seize his mobile phone.

Also read: Allahabad HC calls for initiation of contempt proceedings against advocate who challenged Court’s authority in open Court alleging Government pressure

[Kamal Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2479 of 2022, decided on 11-5-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Kamal Rathore and Mahendra Kumar Meena

For the Respondent: Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP, Amit Jindal, Saurabh Yadav, Advocates