The Bombay High Court has upheld a directive issued by a Beed sessions court judge asking the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for police officers deposing before courts via video conferencing.

A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale dismissed a petition filed by Bramhanand Naikwadi, a senior police inspector from Nerul police station, who had sought to quash the trial judge’s January 22 letter to the DGP. The High Court, in its April 16 order, held that the letter did not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity.

The directive came after Naikwadi’s conduct during his virtual deposition in a 2014 case was found to be inappropriate. The trial judge took note of Naikwadi’s gesture to a constable—raising his hands to signal him to stop from entering his chamber—while giving evidence via mobile phone. Though Naikwadi later apologised, he was issued a show-cause notice for potential contempt of court.

Advocate Rizwan Merchant, appearing for Naikwadi, argued that the gesture was not intended as a sign of disrespect and that the officer had been fatigued after supervising arrangements for the Coldplay concert.

Naikwadi’s plea further claimed that the show-cause notice from the trial court was followed by another notice from the DGP, questioning why his annual increment should not be withheld due to his conduct.

Expressing concern about the implications for his professional record, Naikwadi argued that the trial judge's letter was disproportionate and motivated.

However, the High Court rejected these arguments, observing that Naikwadi’s conduct appeared to reflect an "insolent" attitude, and that the casual approach to court proceedings cannot be justified merely because one is deposing remotely from an office setting.

"The annoyance expressed by the trial judge in the impugned letter cannot be termed exaggerated or unwarranted," the bench remarked, underlining that as the investigating officer, Naikwadi’s testimony held significant weight in the case.

The court further clarified that the trial judge’s request to the DGP to consider formulating an SOP was institutional in nature and could not be viewed as driven by personal vendetta against Naikwadi.

"The officer’s behaviour during the video conference likely hindered the administration of justice. Instituting guidelines for such appearances is, therefore, both reasonable and necessary," the bench concluded.