Attending virtual court proceedings from toilet costs Gujarat man ₹1 lakh. Here's what happened
The court also said it is considering sending the person concerned, named Samad Abdul Rehman Shah, to jail as his conduct was contumacious.
"The contemnor has admitted about his conduct during the live-streaming proceedings. Thus, at this stage, we direct the contemnor to deposit ₹ 1 lakh before the registry of this court before the next date of hearing," said a Division Bench of Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani.
The High Court also noted that despite its order, the HC Registrar (Information & Technology) has not filed a reply and no steps have been suggested about how such incidents can be stopped.
The counsel appearing for the Registrar told the Division Bench that he would assist the court on the next hearing date.
The case has been listed for the next hearing on July 22.
In June, a video went viral on social media showing Samad attending Gujarat High Court's virtual proceedings while seated on a toilet and apparently relieving himself.
The incident took place on June 20 before the bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai.
Initially in the video, a closeup of the man featured, showing Samad wearing a Bluetooth earphone.
Subsequently, he was seen keeping his phone at a distance, revealing that he was seated on a toilet.
The man was appearing as a respondent in a case seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR). He was the complainant in the criminal case, Bar and Bench report said citing the court records.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
5 hours ago
- The Wire
Delhi High Court Quashes Cases Against 70 Indians Accused of Housing Foreign Tablighi Jamaat Participants
Law A total of 16 FIRs were filed against 70 Indian nationals for allegedly having violated the nationwide lockdown and other prohibitory orders by housing foreign nationals for the Tablighi Jamaat during Covid-19 lockdown. New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday (July 17) quashed the chargesheets in 16 cases registered against 70 Indians for allegedly sheltering foreigners who participated in the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020, Bar and Bench reported. 'Chargesheets quashed,' Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said pronouncing the verdict, as quoted in the report. A detailed copy of the judgement is awaited. A total of 16 FIRs had been filed by the Delhi Police. The accused were booked under provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act and the Foreigners Act for allegedly having violated the nationwide lockdown and other prohibitory orders by housing foreign nationals. The Tablighi Jamaat was widely criticised for allegedly having caused one of the biggest spikes in coronavirus cases in India in 2020. The police had also named 195 foreign nationals but most of them were not charge-sheeted and the trial court had also refused to take cognisance on the chargesheet, on the grounds of double jeopardy. The accused had approached the high court in 2021 seeking to quash the FIRs against them, stating that the prohibitory orders were only for religious congregations and gatherings and not on providing shelter to the attendees. In January 2022, the Delhi Police opposed the quashing petitions, saying that the accused had not only violated prohibitory orders issued by the Delhi government but also contributed to the spread of coronavirus. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Ashima Mandla argued that the attendees who were found inside mosques or in houses were merely being provided shelter, LiveLaw reported. The high court had earlier also quizzed the Delhi Police as to where the attendees could have gone when city suddenly imposed a lockdown. The Tablighi Jamaat congregation was held in Delhi's Nizamuddin Markaz in early March, 2020, with more than 9,000 members said to have attended the event. Prohibitory orders for gatherings, in view of the Covid-19 outbreak, was declared in the national capital on March 13. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to lift stay on ‘Udaipur Files' release, asks Centre to review film by July 21
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to lift the stay on the release of the Hindi film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly based on the 2022 killing of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal, Bar and Bench reported. The film was scheduled to be released on July 11. The Delhi High Court had stayed the release on June 10 and directed the Union government to examine the film's content. On Wednesday, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi said that it expected the Union government to take its decision ' immediately, without loss of time ', reported Live Law. The bench added that it would await the outcome of the government's review and listed the matter for further hearing on July 21. In June 2022, Lal, a tailor, was killed in Rajasthan's Udaipur for purportedly sharing a social media post in support of suspended Bharatiya Janata Party Spokesperson Nupur Sharma. She had made disparaging remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a television debate in May 2022. The assailants and several other persons accused in the matter were arrested by the Rajasthan Police. A video showed two men claiming responsibility for the killing of Lal as they brandished the cleavers used in the murder. The murder case was investigated by the National Investigation Agency and the persons accused in the matter were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The trial is underway in a Special NIA Court in Jaipur. The High Court had stayed the release of Udaipur Files while hearing a batch of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani, seeking a ban on the film. The petitioners had alleged that the film is communally provocative and vilifies the Muslim community A day before the order, the Supreme Court had heard a writ petition filed by Mohammed Javed, one of the eight persons accused in the murder case. Javed argued that the release of the film would violate his right to a fair trial. He had sought that the release of the film be postponed until the trial in the matter concluded. The petitioner also argued that the film, based on its trailer, appeared to be communally provocative. In response, the Supreme Court said that the petition could be mentioned before the appropriate bench when the Supreme Court reopened on July 14 after the summer break. It added that the movie could be released in the meantime.
News18
a day ago
- News18
Woman Leaves Man Due To Marital Issues, He Moves Court. Judges Say 'Wife Not a Commodity'
Last Updated: The Orissa High Court noted that the woman left him out of her own volition due to some marital disputes A man moved the Orissa High Court to secure the custody of her wife, who, along with their child, left his house over marital issues. Instead of relief, the man got to listen to harsh words from the court, which also imposed Rs 25,000 cost on him for filing the frivolous habeas corpus plea. The Orissa High Court noted that the woman left him out of her own volition due to some marital disputes. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that the husband cannot compel the wife to act as per his dictum nor can he treat the 'wife as his commodity," Live Law reported. 'The fundamental right which is conferred upon every individual irrespective of the gender cannot be treated as one way traffic by a particular gender. The wife has a right to take an independent decision of her life and if she has chosen to dissociate her company from the husband, the husband cannot be permitted to abuse or misuse the power of the Court in issuing the writ of habeas corpus," the bench stated in its order. After leaving her husband, the woman and her child were living with her brother. However, the man alleged that she was held in wrongful detention by his brother-in-law. He also filed a complaint with the police about this allegation. After the petition was filed, police contacted the petitioner's wife to understand the reasons behind the habeas corpus plea. She cited marital discord as the reason for leaving. Once this was conveyed to the court, the bench strongly criticised the petitioner for misusing legal provisions to settle personal disputes and for treating his wife like a 'commodity". 'The application is frivolous and misconceived, and warrants not just dismissal but also the imposition of heavy costs," the court observed. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
