Read Time: 10 minutes
The court highlighted, “the initiation/expansion of live streaming must be preceded by adequate preparation so as to ensure that the quality and security of judicial proceedings is not compromised… imposing rigid timelines without regard to technical challenges and resource allocation would not be prudent”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a writ petition seeking compliance with the directions regarding live streaming and video recording of court proceedings. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held, “this Court, on the administrative side has been actively engaged in addressing the logistical and infrastructural challenges associated with the initiative to introduce/expand live streaming of Court proceedings. However, it has also been recognized that there are infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative”.
The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court, in the case of Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (W.P. (C) No. 1232 of 2018), emphasized that access to justice formed an essential component of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had observed that the concept of justice at the doorstep would be meaningful only if the public was allowed to witness court proceedings, especially in matters impacting the public at large.
Following this judgment, the e-committee of the Supreme Court formulated Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings. These rules highlighted the need for courts to establish infrastructure for live streaming and archiving proceedings to enhance transparency and accessibility. The rules applied to High Courts and subordinate courts under their supervisory jurisdiction.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Nikhil Srivastava, submitted that despite the issuance of the Notification by the Delhi High Court, the notification had not been effectively implemented. The notification outlined guidelines for the archival, access, and retention of recorded proceedings. As per Rule 7, court recordings were to be archived, and access to them was to be granted through prescribed procedures.
Furthermore, the petitioner sought the preservation of court proceedings dated September 9, 2024. However, the court dismissed the application, stating that the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing (2021) did not mandate the automatic recording of proceedings. The court clarified that recordings occurred only upon a specific application filed before the proceedings, which had not been done in this case.
The petitioner subsequently filed an interlocutory application seeking the recording of proceedings dated October 9, 2024, which remained pending adjudication. Additionally, the petitioner filed an RTI application on October 21, 2024, requesting information regarding the implementation of live-streaming rules. The response, dated November 6, 2024, confirmed that no archival data or recordings of court proceedings existed and that live streaming was limited to Court No. 1, as per the directions of the High Court.
The petitioner alleged that the lack of video recording and live streaming allowed the plaintiff to mislead the court and obtain favorable orders based on false submissions. Furthermore, the petitioner cited an Unstarred Question No. 1232 raised in the Rajya Sabha to the Ministry of Law and Justice, seeking details on the implementation of live-streaming directives and the allocation of funds for necessary infrastructure.
The Ministry of Law and Justice responded on December 5, 2024, stating that the Supreme Court had not issued specific directions to the Government of India regarding live streaming. However, the Model Rules had been circulated to all High Courts, and a budget of ₹112.26 crores had been allocated under the eCourts Project Phase-III for the establishment of the Courtroom Live Audio-visual Streaming System (CLASS). Despite this allocation, the petitioner argued that no comprehensive infrastructure had been implemented across all courts.
The court had observed that the phased implementation of live streaming was subject to logistical feasibility and resource management. The court acknowledged that the Delhi High Court was actively engaged in addressing infrastructural challenges and that premature judicial intervention would be inappropriate.
The court noted that while efforts to implement live streaming were underway, imposing rigid timelines without considering technical challenges and resource constraints would not be prudent. The court further observed that judicial mechanisms were not the appropriate forum for petitioners to influence administrative decisions related to procedural adaptations in the courts.
Regarding the petitioner's request for access to recorded proceedings in specific cases, the court emphasized that the existing rules governed such access, particularly concerning privacy concerns. Expanding access without adequate safeguards could lead to misuse and security risks. The court reiterated that adjustments to the recording procedures fell under the purview of the High Court’s IT and administrative teams, which were responsible for ensuring compliance with legal standards and operational efficiency.
Considering these observations, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming its confidence in the existing processes and the judiciary’s commitment to enhancing transparency responsibly. The court ruled that the technical committees overseeing live streaming initiatives were best equipped to address these challenges, and any directives issued without due consideration of infrastructural and security concerns could undermine judicial integrity and confidentiality.
For Petitioner: Advocates Nikhil Srivastava and Muskan SharmaFor Respondent: Advocates Harshita Nathrani, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Harshvardhan Thakur, and Yash DCase Title: Bharat Bhushan Sharma v Govt (2025:DHC:2106)
Please Login or Register
