Read Time: 05 minutes
The lawyer who circulated the proceedings argued that his actions were justified as transparency is absolutely essential in judicial proceedings
The Kerala High Court has held that recording and circulating virtual court proceedings amounts to contempt of court. It also clarified that lawyers’ participation in proceedings via video conferencing does not grant them the right to record or distribute the proceedings.
The court, presided over by Justice P. Gopinath, observed: “The ‘Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021’, as also the ‘Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Attending of Court Proceedings through Video Conferencing before the High Court of Kerala’ expressly prohibit the recording of the proceedings of the Court in any manner and therefore the fact that the Lawyers are permitted to enter the proceedings through video conferencing does not mean that the proceedings can be recorded and circulated.”
The court made the observation while hearing a a batch of writ petitions filed by companies challenging Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) proceedings initiated against them by various banks. During the hearing, it was brought to the court’s attention that the proceedings were being recorded and circulated in WhatsApp groups, including those of borrowers and bank law officers.
When confronted, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpura, representing the petitioners, asserted that he had the right to record and share the court proceedings, arguing that “transparency is absolutely essential in judicial proceedings.”
The court rejected this argument on the basis of Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Attending of Court Proceedings through Video Conferencing before the High Court of Kerala.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002), the Court reiterated that the law of contempt exists to uphold public respect and confidence in the judiciary. “The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself,” the court noted.
Concluding that the unauthorized recording and circulation of proceedings amounted to contempt, the court directed its Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further consideration.
Cause Title: M/S M.D.Esthappan v RBI [WP(C)NO. 45166 OF 2024 & WP(C)NO.46514 OF 2024]
Please Login or Register
