Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara’s petition highlights “ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and demands court transparency through video recording of hearings. SC has listed the matter for detailed hearing on September 19.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday agreed to hear a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which raises serious concerns about the way lawyers and litigants are treated in Indian courts. The matter will now be taken up on September 19, 2025.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who appeared in person through video conferencing.
He requested the Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra for a short adjournment so that he could argue the matter personally. The request was accepted and the case was posted for the new date.
ALSO READ: Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf Resigns, To Continue Till January 2026
According to the petition, the Indian judicial system is facing
“ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants” and is plagued by “discriminatory and unjust practices prevailing in courts across the country.”
It urges the top court to bring urgent reforms to ensure that all advocates and litigants are treated fairly and respectfully.
One of the main demands in the petition is for mandatory video recording of all court and tribunal proceedings across India. The petitioners say such recordings should be preserved and given as a matter of right to lawyers, litigants, and other stakeholders.
The petition highlights that when ordinary citizens come to court—whether in the trial courts, High Courts, or even the Supreme Court—they often see lawyers being forced to behave with “undue obsequiousness” while judges treat them and the litigants with “discourtesy.”
It further adds that instances of humiliation are common and have now become a matter of serious public concern.
As an example, the petition refers to a recent incident in the Bombay High Court, where a young lawyer collapsed in the courtroom after being harshly reprimanded by the Bench. It also cites a viral video where a High Court judge called a junior advocate “garbage of the court.”
The plea alleges that when junior lawyers argue cases, they are often dismissed without proper hearing, but matters presented by designated Senior Advocates or juniors connected to influential lawyers get much more time and attention.
Another strong criticism in the petition is against the way Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 are handled.
It states that on average, the Supreme Court takes only 93 seconds to dispose of an SLP. According to the petition, such quick disposal “undermines access to justice for ordinary litigants.”
The plea also questions India’s practice of following precedents strictly based on the numerical strength of benches, instead of the quality of reasoning in the judgment. It points out that a smaller bench cannot disagree with a larger or coordinate bench without reference to an even larger bench.
The petition calls this system “anomalous” because it unnecessarily requires the Chief Justice to set up larger benches of 3, 5, or 7 judges, wasting judicial time and harming the interests of common litigants.
The petition also gives the background of this fight for transparency. In 2010, the petitioner wrote to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court asking for video recording of proceedings.
In 2014, then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha considered the possibility of audio recording. However, later efforts were rejected.
In 2016, the Bombay High Court dismissed the idea, saying it would “reduce the court into a circus.” The Supreme Court also upheld this view in both 2016 and 2018.
The petitioners argue that the COVID-19 pandemic proved that video recording and virtual hearings are possible and effective. Courts across the country used technology extensively, but even then, the system did not make it mandatory to preserve records or provide access to them for litigants and lawyers.
Therefore, the petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to issue the following directions:
- Declare that transparency, accountability, and the principle of “open courts” require mandatory video recording of all court proceedings. These records should be preserved for at least six months and made accessible to lawyers, litigants, and other stakeholders.
- Ensure that advocates and litigants are not ill-treated, and that all lawyers are given equal opportunity of hearing regardless of whether they are juniors, seniors, or designated Senior Advocates.
- Remove excessive restrictions on public access to courts, particularly in High Courts like Kerala and Madras, where strict entry controls allegedly violate the principle of open justice.
The petitioners stress that the judiciary has a constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights and address these concerns.
They also argue that video recording would prevent humiliation of lawyers and litigants, improve accountability, deter arbitrary behavior, and restore public confidence in the justice system.
The Supreme Court will now hear it on September 19.
Case Title:
Shri Mathews J Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Supreme Court of India & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on the Video Recording
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
