Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking directions for the respondents to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s and the Delhi High Court’s directions regarding live-streaming and video recording of court proceedings on grounds of lack of implementation of these directions resulting in opaqueness in judicial processes, thereby impeding the public’s right to access justice, Sachin Datta, J., dismissed the petition and held that issuance of any omnibus directions, regardless of the technical issues and the safeguards that are required to be put in place, could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes.
The genesis of the dispute traces back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639, where the Court recognised access to justice as an essential component of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that justice at the doorstep would only be meaningful if the public was allowed to witness court proceedings, particularly in matters affecting the larger public interest. Consequently, the e-committee of the Supreme Court formulated the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, which applied to High Courts and subordinate courts under their supervisory jurisdiction.
Subsequently, Delhi High Court issued a notification dated 13-01-2023, later corrected by corrigendum dated 03-11-2023, which laid down detailed guidelines on archival, access, and retention of recorded proceedings. Rule 7 of the notification mandated that court recordings be archived and access be granted under prescribed procedures. The petitioner alleged that despite the notification, the directions had not been effectively implemented.
The petitioner’s grievances primarily arose from the proceedings in a suit where the petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 CPC, 1908, seeking preservation of the Court proceedings dated 03-09-2024. The application was dismissed on the ground that the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing (2021) did not mandate automatic recording of proceedings. The Court observed that recording only occurred upon a specific application filed prior to the proceedings, which was not done in this case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interim application seeking recording of proceedings dated 09-10-2024, which remained pending adjudication. The petitioner also filed an RTI application on 21-10-2024, seeking information regarding the implementation of live-streaming and video recording rules. The response received on 06-11-2024 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 Court.
Further, the petitioner contended that the absence of video recording and live streaming had allowed the plaintiff in a suit to mislead the Court and obtain favorable orders based on false submissions. To highlight the seriousness of the issue, the petitioner referred to an Unstarred Question No. 1232 raised in the Rajya Sabha, seeking details on the implementation of live-streaming directions and fund allocations for the necessary infrastructure. The Ministry of Law and Justice, in its response dated 05-12-2024, stated that while the Supreme Court had not issued specific directions to the Government of India regarding live-streaming, the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings had been circulated to all High Courts. Additionally, the Ministry disclosed that Rs. 112.26 crores had been earmarked under the eCourts Project Phase-III for the establishment of a Courtroom Live Audio-Visual Streaming System (CLASS). However, despite the allocation of funds, comprehensive infrastructure had not been implemented across all courts.
During the proceedings, the respondents referred to the order dated 20-08-2024 in C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High Court Through Registrar General, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6144 where in it was acknowledged that the logistical and infrastructural challenges in expanding live-streaming of court proceedings. It was observed that the initiation or expansion of live-streaming required adequate preparation to ensure the quality and security of judicial proceedings. Concerns had also been raised about the misuse of live-stream videos by content creators on social media. The Court emphasized that necessary practical assessments and safeguards must be introduced before expanding the initiative.
Considering these observations, the Court noted that issuing omnibus directions, as sought by the petitioner, without considering technical issues and requisite safeguards, could have unintended consequences. Such an approach could potentially undermine the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes. The Court also observed that imposing rigid timelines without addressing the underlying technical challenges and resource constraints would be imprudent.
Consequently, the Court declined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and dismissed the present petition.
[Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 2888/2025, decided on 28-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Nikhil Srivastava and Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocates alongwith petitioner in person
Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Adv. for R1 and R2. Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Mr. Harshvardhan Thakur and Mr. Yash D., Advocates for R3.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
