Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Gujarat High Court has held that videos of court proceedings that are live-streamed are required to be removed from YouTube after a specific period of time. The court also warned against unauthorized use of live-streamed content, stating that transcripts could not be treated as official records or evidence and any violation of the rules would invite contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

A Division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi, observed: “we are of the opinion that the videos of the Court proceedings are required to be removed from the YouTube after a specific period, however, we leave it on the discretion of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.” The court, in furtherance, directed the removal of live-streamed court proceedings from YouTube, citing Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.

The court made the observation while dismissing a contempt application, filed by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association (applicant), represented by Advocate Deepak Khosla, against ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. and others (respondents), seeking action against senior advocates Mihir Joshi, Mihir Thakore, and Rashesh Sanjanwala, alleging that their appearance and arguments in a matter violated a Supreme Court ruling limiting representation to one senior counsel per party. The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the respondents, in which a single judge had passed an interim order on August 8, 2024, staying a June 6, 2024, communication. The applicant had sought the vacation of the stay under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, arguing that the stay automatically lapsed after 15 days. However, two single judges recused from hearing the matter, and the interim order was extended.

The applicant further alleged that Single Judges, including Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, acted in contempt by extending ad-interim relief despite a pending application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the stay. The application included transcriptions from live-streamed court proceedings on YouTube as evidence.

The applicant also contended that the advocates’ requests for extending ad-interim relief orders were in defiance of legal precedents set by the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and other cases. It was submitted that under Supreme Court precedent, seeking further extensions of interim relief was impermissible. However, the division bench dismissed the plea, finding no merit in the applicant's arguments.

The court, criticising the applicant’s approach as an attempt to “mortify learned advocates appearing for the respondents and the learned Single Judges,” deemed the application an “epitome of frivolity.” The court noted that instead of challenging the orders before a higher forum through proper legal channels, the applicant had intertwined unrelated issues to pursue contempt proceedings.

The court found no connection between the allegations of contempt and the conduct of the respondents or their advocates. It acknowledged the legal precedents cited by the applicant but stated that “it cannot rescue the applicant from the frivolity of the application,” for engaging in contumacious conduct by filing a baseless application and making unwarranted remarks against the single judges.

The bench strongly condemned the reliance on a 259-page transcript derived from live-streamed court proceedings. Citing Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021, the court emphasised that live-streamed videos and their content were not admissible as part of the court record or as evidence in legal proceedings. The rules, the court held, extended to transcripts as well, since they were derived from the live-streamed content. The use of such material in contempt proceedings violated the prescribed limitations, warranting strict condemnation.

The court further said, “It is apparent that, this application has been filed for vested interest. Though, the applicant has an alternative remedy, the present application is filed by creating a peerless cause. In fact, by contending that the request made by the learned senior counsels and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents in seeking extension of ad- interim order is contemptuous, an attempt has been made to cast aspersion on the learned Single Judges of this Court in extending the ad-interim order.”

Conclusively, the court dismissed the application deeming it “absolutely ill- conceived, frivolous and is filed with an ill-motive to demean the learned Single Judges and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents.” Finding it a waste of judicial time, the bench imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 on the applicant, to be deposited within two weeks.

Additionally, regarding the misuse of live-streamed proceedings, the court directed that such videos be removed from YouTube after a specific period, subject to the discretion of the Chief Justice.

 

Cause Title: Gujarat Operational Creditors Association v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. & Ors [C/MCA/2559/2024]

Appearance: Mr Deepak Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Jaydeep M Shukla (6974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keyur Gandhi, Mr Raheel S. Patel, Ms Isha Hakim & MR Yash Dadhich- Advocates for the respondents.