The Bombay High Court Wednesday upheld the letter of a trial court asking the Maharashtra director general of police (DGP) to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for investigating officers to give evidence through video conferencing to ensure maintenance of decorum in the court.
The letter by the Beed District court came after the improper conduct of a senior police officer attached to Nerul Police station in Navi Mumbai while giving evidence through virtual mode. The officer claimed he could not depose physically as he was stressed after supervision duty for the Coldplay concert in January this year.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale on April 16 passed an order on a plea by Bramhanand Naikwadi, Senior Police Inspector, attached with the Nerul Police station since July 2024, challenging the January 22 letter of the Beed trial court.
Advocate Rizwan Merchant, representing the petitioner, submitted that his client, the investigating officer (IO) in a 2014 case, was required to appear before the Beed trial court to give evidence, which he did so through virtual mode. During the proceedings, a constable unknowingly entered the petitioner’s chamber at Nerul Police Station, prompting the petitioner to raise his hand to stop him. The trial judge noted the incident, after which the petitioner immediately apologised, Merchant added.
However, the petitioner later received a show cause notice from the trial court on January 31, followed by another from the additional director general of police (Administration) on February 19.
Merchant claimed the petitioner had been supervising security arrangements for the Coldplay concert to be held in Navi Mumbai from January 18 to 21, a high-security event, which left him stressed. He added that due to these circumstances and poor internet connectivity during his virtual appearance, the petitioner could not physically attend court, and documents sought by the trial court were not readily available to him.
Merchant argued the petitioner had no intention to disrespect the trial court, and his conduct was not contemptuous. He added that the letter sent by the trial judge to the petitioner’s senior could seriously prejudice or impact his career and should, therefore, be quashed and set aside as misconceived.
Story continues below this ad
The court perused the impugned letter, which stated that the concerned documents were sent to the petitioner well in advance and while recording evidence, he kept muting his microphone, and when the trial court judge admonished him not to speak to anyone else while deposing before the court, the petitioner laughed. The trial court judge also found he was answering his phone during the proceedings, and when questioned, he replied he had to take the police commissioner’s call.
The High Court noted that the said behaviour “prima facie clearly reeks of insolent conduct” by the petitioner. “The mere fact of being permitted to appear and depose from the comfort and convenience of his office definitely did not allow him to take the Court proceedings casually,” the court said.
The bench noted that recording of evidence is a “crucial part of the trial”, and the petitioner’s deposition was significant as he was IO in the case; therefore, “annoyance of the district judge cannot be considered as exaggerated or misconceived.”
The bench also said the petitioner’s conduct was “sure to cause some obstruction in the administration of justice and affect the proceedings in the trial.” Dismissing the plea, the bench said there was “no infirmity or illegality” in the trial court’s letter.