He further claimed that because court proceedings were not being recorded or live-streamed, the plaintiff in his case was able “to mislead the Court and obtain favourable orders based on false submissions.”
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently refused to issue a general order directing the retention of recorded court proceedings.
The court stated that such a broad direction could affect “the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court To Live-Stream All Matters | Beta Version of App In Final Testing Phase
The case was based on a petition filed by Bharat Bhushan Sharma. He referred to the Supreme Court’s model rules for live-streaming court proceedings and a January 2023 circular issued by the Delhi High Court. This circular provided clear guidelines on how court recordings should be archived, accessed, and retained.
According to Rule 7 of this notification, all court recordings must be archived, and access should be granted through a proper procedure.
Sharma argued that the guidelines were “not being effectively implemented.” He cited an RTI response from November 2024, which stated that no court recording data had been archived and that live streaming was available only for Court No. 1.
Sharma also referred to a December 2024 response in the Rajya Sabha. In this reply to an unstarred question, the Ministry of Law and Justice mentioned that Rs 112.26 crore had been allocated under eCourts Project Phase-III for setting up the Courtroom Live Audiovisual Streaming System (CLASS).
Justice Sachin Datta dismissed Sharma’s petition, citing a previous Delhi High Court ruling. In his order dated March 28, he stated:
“…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 recognised that there are infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative. Also, importantly, 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.”
Justice Datta also noted that concerns had recently been raised about the misuse of live-streamed videos by content creators on social media. Addressing this issue, he said:
“This is particularly in the light of recent concerns arising on account of misuse of live stream videos by content creators on social media. As such, it is imperative that necessary practical assessments are made and safeguards are introduced….the technical committees of this Court are actively engaged in the said exercise. It has also been rightly noted that imposing rigid timelines without regard to technical challenges and resource allocation would not be prudent… Issuance of any omnibus directions (as sought by the petitioner), 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.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
