Calcutta HC: Sharing screenshots of virtual Court proceedings on LinkedIn amounts to Contempt of Court

In course of the hearing today, this Court indicated to the parties the following

impropriety evident from the aforesaid screenshot/publication; ‐

[a] a screenshot of Court Proceeding has been taken which is equivalent to a

photograph of a Court Proceeding, without the leave of this Court.

[b] The screenshot was published in a personal web page of a website called

‘Linked In’ about two months ago without the leave or knowledge of this Court.

[b] an insinuation may be evident from the aforesaid writing on the page in

question seen with the screenshot.

The department is directed to number a suo motu contempt proceeding against Mr.

S. Kakrania, Advocate who shall answer the Rule that is issued herewith.

Formal drawing up of Rule and service of the same is dispensed with since Mr.

Kakrania is personally present in the hearing today. 

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

ORIGINAL SIDE

GA NO.820 OF 2020

WITH

CS NO.2 OF 2017

LINDSAY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD VS. LAXMI NIWAS MITTAL & ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

Date: 12th August, 2020.

Print Page

Whether video recording of court proceeding is permitted?

As regards prayer of Mr. Khosla for video recording of the proceeding, I have permitted such recording as there was no objection from the learned Advocates appearing for the different parties. But I make it clear that the proceedings being recorded today shall not form part of the official records of this Court as there is no Rule of the Court as yet framed permitting video recording of the proceedings before the Court. The recordings would be for the purpose of assistance of this Court, like noting of submissions of the parties in course of hearing and such recording shall not be made available to any of the parties or outsiders unless otherwise directed by this Court, and this Court shall have the power and authority to make necessary editing of the recorded version, removing any part therefrom which this Court considers it necessary to avoid any scandalous or undesirable or irrelevant matter to remain on record.

Calcutta High Court

ANGELO BROTHERS LTD  V THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT,

CALCUTTA on 15 July, 2015

Author: Aniruddha Bose

Print Page

Calcutta High Court allows recording of court proceedings

In a first, the Calcutta High Court has recorded court room proceedings, setting a precedent in the country where even the top court has been reluctant to permit cameras and microphones inside court halls. On a directive by Justice Aniruddha Bose, the Calcutta High Court registry made all arrangements and installed a video camera and a microphone inside court hall number 24. The proceedings on July 15 were recorded for nearly 45 minutes. Justice Bose’s direction came on persistent pleas by advocate Deepak Khosla. He had been trying to convince the judge for long to order video recording so that there is incontrovertible evidence of conduct of the counsel on the other side. According to Khosla, he was being subjected to constant heckling and abuses inside the court room and recording could prevent diminution of the standing and authority of the court. Acceding to his request on a day when the altercation between Khosla and the counsel on the other side reached a flashpoint, Justice Bose summoned registry officials and directed them to take approval from the administrative judge for setting up a camera and a microphone inside the court hall. The July 15 order by Justice Bose stated that he was allowing Khosla’s request for video recording of the proceedings since there was no objection from advocates appearing for different parties in the civil case. Mindful of the fact that neither the Supreme Court nor any other high court had framed any rule for such recording, Justice Bose added a caveat that “the proceedings being recorded today shall not form part of the official records of this court”. The order clarified that the

Print Page