Bombay High Court refuses relief to cop who laughed after being admonished by judge

The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a letter issued by a trial court judge to the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra, highlighting inappropriate conduct by a senior police Inspector during a court hearing [Bramhanand Raosaheb Naikwadi v State of Maharashtra]..The police officer (petitioner) allegedly muted his microphone and conversed with others in the room while appearing through video conference before a trial court to give his testimony as the investigating officer in a 2014 criminal case. When he was admonished by the trial court judge over his behaviour, the cop is said to have laughed. He was further accused of answering a phone call by claiming it was from the Commissioner of Police, midway through his testimony..A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that, prima facie, such behaviour by the petitioner reeked of insolent conduct.“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 annoyance of the District Judge depicted in the impugned letter cannot be considered as exaggerated or misconceived," it added. .The High Court, therefore, dismissed the police officer's plea to set aside the trial court judge's letter that flagged his alleged misconduct.“The manner in which the Petitioner conducted himself during the proceedings is sure to cause some obstruction in the administration of justice and affect the proceedings in the trial. In any case, a request by the Trial Judge to the Petitioner’s superior Officer to frame SOPs for the investigating agencies in giving evidence through video conference does not imply any personal vendetta of the Trial Judge against the Petitioner, as alleged by him," it said..The Court was hearing a petition filed by Senior Police Inspector Bramhanand Raosaheb Naikwadi, currently posted at Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai.He sought to set aside the January 22, 2025 letter sent by the District and Sessions Judge-I, Beed, to the DGP, requesting the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that courtroom decorum is preserved during video conference depositions by police personnel. .The letter was issued after Naikwadi’s deposition on January 20, 2025, in a 2014 case where he was the Investigating Officer. The officer appeared remotely via mobile phone from his police station office.During the deposition, he allegedly muted his microphone repeatedly, spoke to others in the room, failed to provide necessary documents (despite prior notice), and answered a phone call, claiming it was from the Commissioner of Police.The High Court noted that,“When the Trial Judge admonished him not to speak to anybody while deposing, the Petitioner laughed. Despite repeated warnings by the Court to answer properly, he kept telling the APP that everything is written in the panchanama.”.Following the incident, the trial judge issued a show cause notice to the officer for contempt and separately requested senior police officials to consider setting guidelines for virtual court appearances.A departmental show cause notice was also issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Maharashtra, proposing disciplinary action against Naikwadi, including a freeze on his annual increment.Representing Naikwadi, Advocate Rizwan Merchant argued that the officer had no intention to disrespect the Court and was overworked at the time due to law and order responsibilities surrounding a “Coldplay” concert held in Navi Mumbai from January 18–21.Merchant contended that the officer was under significant professional stress, that technical issues affected the video link, and that his actions were misunderstood. He called the trial judge’s letter “misconceived” and flagged concern that it could cause serious prejudice to Naikwadi’s career..The High Court, however, firmly rejected these claims. Citing the seriousness of courtroom proceedings, especially during the recording of evidence, the Bench held that remote access to court hearings cannot excuse casual or disrespectful behavior.Concluding that there was no illegality or procedural error in the trial judge’s action, the Court dismissed the petition. However, it clarified that the petitioner was free to respond to the ongoing departmental proceedings on their own merits..Advocate Rizwan Merchant with advocate Rajabhau Chaudhari, fappeared for the petitioner-police officerAdditional Public Prosecutor V B Konde Deshmukh appeared for the State.[Read Order]