The Bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging an order prohibiting litigants from bringing mobile phones or recording devices into Court Halls, holding no infirmity in the order issued in public interest.
The ban on bringing mobile phones and recording devices into Court Halls was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 OF 2017
Vinod D. Gangwal … Petitioner.
V/s.
The Registrar General of Bombay High Court. ... Respondent.
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar I/b. Amit B. Borkar for Respondent 1.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 18 JUNE 2019.
P.C. :-
Filed in public interest, the Petitioner challenges the
notice dated 13 February 2017 issued by the Registrar General of
this Court prohibiting litigants from entering Court Halls with
mobile phones, cameras or audio/video recording devices.
2
that litigants do not switch off their mobile phones and during hearing when their mobile phones ring, disturbance is created. Further, there have been incidents of unauthorized and illegal audio/video recording of Court proceedings. The order has been issued in public interest.
N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a ban on mobile phones, cameras, and recording devices in Court Halls is infirm.
Vinod D. Gangwal
The Registrar General of Bombay High Court
Pradeep Nandrajog
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
