Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Disciplinary Action and Seeks Contempt Explanation Over Video Hearing Conduct

Disciplinary action and show-cause direction

Justice Deepak Khot of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur passed an order on 27 October 2026 in M/s G.S.B. Construction v. Shri Amit Kumar Gajbhiye, CONC No. 3816 of 2026. The Court recorded that the respondent official, Joint Director of Town and Country Planning at Bhopal, appeared by video conference from his bed while buttoning his shirt and wearing underpants. The judge criticised the conduct as contrary to court decorum and directed that proper disciplinary action be initiated. The State must file a report within four weeks.

Separate question of criminal contempt

The signed order also directed the official to show cause why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated for his conduct during the hearing. He has four weeks to file his response. The order contains strong judicial observations describing the conduct as misconduct and contemptuous. Nevertheless, the direction to show cause is a distinct procedural step. The matter should not be described as a completed criminal contempt trial or a final sentence. The official remains entitled to respond to the proposed proceedings and any further action must follow the applicable legal process.

Why the official appeared before the Court

The underlying contempt matter concerned compliance with earlier directions relating to the classification of land in planning records. On 9 October, the Court had required a compliance report and directed the official's appearance if the report was not filed. The petitioner argued that land designated as residential in the Master Plan had been incorrectly recorded as industrial land. The dispute therefore concerned the correction of an existing record, not an application to obtain permission for a new change in land use. The Court considered the respondent's handling of that distinction unsatisfactory.

Court criticises handling of land-use request

The Court referred to a communication dated 3 October 2025 by the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Jabalpur, forwarding a recommendation to correct the land classification to the Directorate's information-technology office in Bhopal. The authority had nevertheless treated the petitioner's representation as a request for change of land use. The judge described the order passed on that representation as merely an eyewash. That finding was made in the compliance proceedings and is separate from the concerns about the respondent's appearance during the virtual hearing.

Fresh directions on the planning portal

The petitioner was directed to apply for rectification through the ALPASS portal. The respondent must facilitate uploading and acceptance of the application within seven days of the order, and the authority must decide the application within four weeks from upload. These are operative administrative directions, not merely comments about courtroom etiquette. They also show that the Court continued to address the underlying land-record dispute while dealing with the conduct issue. The next hearing was fixed for 30 November 2026.

Virtual participation and court standards

Remote hearings make judicial access possible without requiring every participant to travel to court, but they do not dispense with the obligation to behave respectfully during proceedings. The order illustrates that a public official attending through video conference may face consequences for conduct the Court considers incompatible with judicial decorum. At the same time, the disciplinary process and possible criminal contempt process are not identical. Departmental action is to be initiated by the State, whereas any criminal contempt proceeding would require the further judicial steps contemplated by the show-cause direction.

Practical implications and next step

The State has four weeks to report disciplinary action, and the official must provide his explanation on the proposed criminal contempt action within the same period. Separately, the rectification application must be facilitated and decided within the prescribed periods. The order is a reminder that procedural compliance, accurate classification of applications and respectful remote attendance all matter to the administration of justice. It is important to report the operative directions accurately: the High Court sought an explanation on criminal contempt and did not impose a criminal punishment in the signed order examined.

Case Details

M/s G.S.B. Construction v. Shri Amit Kumar Gajbhiye; CONC No. 3816 of 2026; Madhya Pradesh High Court; order dated 27 October 2026.