Mumbai, Apr 18 (PTI) The Bombay High Court has upheld a directive issued by a judge from the Beed sessions court to the Maharashtra Director General of Police to frame a standard operating procedure for officers deposing before courts through video conference.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale refused to quash the judge’s letter to the DGP, noting that it does not find any infirmity or illegality on the trial judge’s part in issuing the same.

The court on April 16 dismissed a petition filed by Bramhanand Naikwadi, a senior police inspector attached with the Nerul police station in Navi Mumbai, seeking to quash the judge’s January 22 letter directing the DGP to frame an SOP for giving evidence through video-conferencing to ensure the decorum in the court is maintained during trials.

The letter was issued following the petitioner’s improper conduct while giving evidence through video conference in January during the trial in a 2014 case.

Naikwadi’s lawyer, Rizwan Merchant, said the petitioner was appearing before the trial court through his mobile phone when a constable tried to enter his chamber, and he raised his hands, gesturing him to stop.

The trial court judge noticed this, and Naikwadi apologised. However, a few days later, he received a show-cause notice seeking an explanation on why action should not be initiated against him for contempt of court.

Naikwadi, in his plea, stated that at the time of his deposition, he was tired after having supervised arrangements for the Coldplay concerts.

Merchant submitted that the petitioner had not intended to disrespect the trial court judge.

The petition stated that after the show cause notice from the court, Naikwadi also received a notice from the DGP as to why his annual increment should not be stopped for his conduct before the trial judge.

Naikwadi said he apprehends serious prejudice to his career.

The high court, in its order, noted that Naikwadi’s behaviour prima facie reeked of insolent conduct on his part and said authorities cannot take court proceedings casually only because they are allowed to appear and depose from the comfort and convenience of their office.

The bench said Naikwadi was the investigating officer of the case, and hence, his evidence was a crucial part of the trial.

“The annoyance of the judge depicted in the impugned letter cannot be considered as exaggerated or misconceived,” the court said.

It observed that the way Naikwadi conducted himself during the proceedings must have caused obstructions in the administration of justice and the trial.

“In any case, a request by the trial judge to the petitioner’s superior officer to frame SOP 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,” the HC said. PTI SP ARU