Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking mandatory video recording of all court proceedings. The plea cites “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants,” unequal hearings, and arbitrary practices as urgent concerns.
New Delhi: A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking urgent reforms to stop what it calls the “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and the “discriminatory and unjust practices prevailing in courts across the country.”
The petition has been filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara along with others. They have demanded that all court and tribunal proceedings in India must be video recorded, that such recordings must be preserved, and that litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders should have the right to access them.
The petitioners argued that ordinary citizens who enter courts—whether in trial courts, High Courts, or even the Supreme Court—are often shocked by the atmosphere inside.
According to them, many lawyers are forced to act with “undue obsequiousness”, while judges treat both counsel and litigants with “discourtesy.” The plea further stated that incidents of “humiliation” are now very common and have become a matter of public concern.
As an example, the petition mentioned a recent incident in the Bombay High Court where a young lawyer collapsed in court while being harshly reprimanded by the Bench.
It also referred to a viral video where a High Court judge allegedly called a junior advocate “garbage of the court.”
The plea said that cases argued by juniors are frequently dismissed without a proper hearing, while matters argued by designated Senior Advocates or juniors connected to influential lawyers get more time and attention from the Bench.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan Paper Leak: High Court Cancels 2021 Sub-Inspector (SI) Recruitment Exam
The petition also raised concern about the handling of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It claimed that
“the average time taken to dispose of an SLP is only 93 seconds.”
According to the petitioners, this shows how access to justice is being denied to ordinary litigants.
Another issue raised was about the Indian judicial system’s reliance on bench strength for precedents. The petition criticised the practice of deciding the authority of judgments only by the number of judges rather than by the soundness of reasoning.
It described as “anomalous” the rule that a smaller bench cannot disagree with a larger or coordinate bench unless the matter is sent to an even larger bench.
This, according to them, forces the Chief Justice to form 3, 5, or 7-judge benches unnecessarily, which wastes precious judicial time and delays justice for common litigants.
The petition also traced its long history of efforts to bring transparency in court proceedings. In 2010, the petitioner wrote to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court seeking video recording of hearings.
Later, in 2014, then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha reportedly considered audio recording in courts.
However, later petitions on video recording were rejected. In 2016, the Bombay High Court observed that such measures would “reduce the court into a circus.” The Supreme Court also dismissed similar challenges in 2016 and 2018.
Ironically, the petitioners pointed out, the COVID-19 pandemic made virtual hearings a reality in courts across India, which proved that recording proceedings and use of technology are both possible and effective.
Still, the demand for preserving these records and giving access to litigants and lawyers has not been implemented.
The petition therefore requested the Supreme Court to issue multiple directions, including:
- A declaration that transparency, accountability, and the principle of “open courts” require video recording of all proceedings in courts and tribunals. These records must be preserved for at least six months and made accessible to lawyers, litigants, and stakeholders.
- Directions to stop the ill-treatment of advocates and litigants and to ensure equal opportunity of hearing, irrespective of whether a case is argued by a senior lawyer or a junior.
- Removal of excessive restrictions on public entry into courts. The plea highlighted that in High Courts like Kerala and Madras, unnecessary restrictions on entry undermine the very principle of open justice.
ALSO READ: Rouse Avenue Court to Hear ED Money Laundering Case Against Robert Vadra on Sept 20
The petitioners strongly argued that the judiciary, being the guardian of fundamental rights, has a constitutional responsibility to act.
They submitted that mandatory video recording of proceedings will not only protect lawyers and litigants from “humiliation” but also increase accountability, discourage arbitrary behaviour, and most importantly, restore public confidence in the justice system.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear this matter in due course.’
Case Title:
Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Paper Leak
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
