The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Senior Police Inspector Bramhanand Naikwadi of Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai, challenging a letter from a Sessions Judge in Beed district. This letter had requested the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra, to draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for maintaining decorum during the recording of evidence through video conferencing.
Naikwadi, who was the Investigating Officer in a 2014 Sessions Case, had appeared before the Trial Court via video conferencing on January 20, 2025. He connected from his office using his mobile phone. During the proceedings, his behavior raised concerns. According to the Trial Judge, he muted his microphone repeatedly, conversed with others in the room, and even laughed when admonished by the judge.
"Despite repeated warnings by the Court to answer properly, he kept saying that everything was written in the panchanama," the High Court noted while reviewing the case. The Trial Judge also observed that Naikwadi answered a phone call during the hearing, claiming it was from the Commissioner of Police.
In response to this conduct, the Trial Judge issued a letter to the DGP on January 22, 2025, requesting the formation of SOPs for video conference testimonies to uphold court decorum. Naikwadi received a show cause notice for contempt of court and responded on February 4. However, he was later served another notice from the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) on February 19, based on the Trial Judge’s letter.
Naikwadi, through his counsel Advocate Rizwan Merchant, argued that he was on duty managing security arrangements for the 'Coldplay Concert' from January 18 to 21, a sensitive event marked as serious from a security perspective. He claimed his fatigue, poor internet connection, and technical issues caused the disruptions. He further emphasized that he had no intention of disrespecting the court.
There was no impropriety, nor was his conduct contemptuous,his lawyer submitted, stating that the show cause notice and the Trial Judge’s letter were unwarranted and could damage his career. He sought to have the letter quashed.
However, the division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale rejected the plea. They observed that the Petitioner's actions appeared insolent and lacked seriousness, particularly given the importance of his testimony.
Recording of evidence is a crucial part of a trial. The manner in which the Petitioner conducted himself is sure to cause obstruction in the administration of justice, the bench stated.
The Court found no illegality in the Trial Judge’s request for SOPs and ruled that it did not indicate any personal vendetta. Emphasizing the importance of courtroom discipline even in virtual settings, the High Court concluded that the request for formal SOPs was justified.
Read Also:-Religion Is A Factor, But Child's Welfare Paramount: Bombay High Court In Custody Dispute
"The mere fact of being permitted to appear from the convenience of his office does not allow one to take court proceedings casually," the Court underlined.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to address the pending show cause notice on its own merits.
