Archived court recordings cannot be claimed by a litigant as of right unless the Bench specifically orders it, the Karnataka High Court has held while dismissing a 72-year-old man’s challenge to the refusal of copies of recordings of his appeal hearing.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking copies of archived audio-visual recordings of a court hearing, holding that Rules 8 and 10 of the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021 do not give an applicant any right to such copies in the absence of a specific direction from the Bench [A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. High Court of Karnataka].
Justice C.M. Poonacha disposed of Writ Petition No. 28070 of 2026 by an oral order, finding the petition devoid of merits. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Girish Hegde.
How the case reached the Court
The petitioner, A. Sathyanarayana Swamy, a resident of Thanisandra village in Bengaluru East taluk, had applied in Form III for copies of the audio-visual recordings of proceedings in Writ Appeal No. 929 of 2025. Rule 8(3) of the 2021 Rules, notified by the High Court in September 2021, provides that access to copies of recordings that have not been uploaded is to be sanctioned by the Designated Officer, who is to act as per law, on an application in Form III.
By a communication dated July 23, 2026, the Assistant Registrar (Information Technology) rejected the request. The communication relied on Rule 10(1)(ii), under which archival data does not constitute the official record of court proceedings unless the Bench directs otherwise. It added that, unless the recordings become part of the official record on a judicial direction, they cannot be made available for the purpose sought.
Challenging that rejection, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash it, a mandamus to grant access to the recordings, and a direction to the High Court administration to frame and publish guidelines or standard operating procedures on the exercise of power under Rule 8(3). He asked for relevant considerations for grant or refusal, reasoned orders, timelines for disposal of Form III applications and an internal review mechanism. He argued that the rejection of a Form III application was erroneous and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The legal position
The Court set out the rules in full. Rule 8 provides that recordings will be archived, that they may be uploaded wholly or in part on the Court’s website or other platforms as directed by the Court, and that archived data should ordinarily be retained for at least six months subject to special directions of the concerned Bench. Rule 10(2) bars anyone other than an authorised person or entity from recording, sharing or disseminating live-streamed proceedings or archival data, vests exclusive copyright in the Court and provides that unauthorised use is punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the law of contempt.
The High Court has dealt with access to its archived hearing videos before. A lawyer’s earlier plea for access to archived recordings was closed after he was allowed to withdraw it, with the question of who has jurisdiction to grant sanction left open. The present order is a decision on the rules themselves.
What the Court said
Justice Poonacha noted that the Assistant Registrar had rejected the application by placing reliance on Rule 10(1)(ii), and then read Rules 8 and 10 together:
It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court.
Since no such right was vested in the petitioner, the Court held that the question of his assailing the rejection did not arise:
In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. The order does not record any separate discussion of the prayer for guidelines or standard operating procedures; the petition failed in its entirety.
Why the order matters
Live streaming has made hearings public, but the ruling draws a clear line between watching a hearing and obtaining a copy of its recording. Under the Karnataka Rules, the archive is not the official record of proceedings and is released only when a Bench so directs, so a Form III application does not by itself create an enforceable claim.
For litigants and lawyers, the practical route is to ask the Bench hearing the matter to direct that the recording be made available, rather than approach the administration or invoke Article 226 against a refusal. The decision also sits alongside the Rules’ restrictions on sharing and reuse of recordings, which remain in force.
Case Title: A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. High Court of Karnataka and Others [W.P. No. 28070 of 2026 (GM-RES)]
Bench: Justice C.M. Poonacha, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 21, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Girish Hegde for the petitioner