Omnibus Directions Could Have Unintended Consequences: Delhi High Court While Dismissing Petition Seeking Streaming Of Court Proceedings
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court regarding live streaming and video recording of court proceedings.
Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
While observing that safeguards are required to be put in place with regard to live-streaming and archiving Court proceedings, the Delhi High Court has dimissed a Petition seeking compliance with directions regarding such video recording and streaming.
The petitioner sought directions for the respondents to take necessary steps to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court regarding live streaming and video recording of court proceedings.
The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held, “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”
Advocate Nikhil Srivastava represented the Petitioner while Advocate Harshita Nathrani represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The matter at hand involves the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018), wherein it has been held that the concept of justice at the doorstep would be meaningful only if the public were allowed to witness court proceedings, particularly in matters impacting the public at large. Following this, the e-committee of the Supreme Court formulated Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, stating that greater transparency and accessibility to justice require courts to set up infrastructure for live-streaming and archiving proceedings.
The petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 CPC, 1908, in Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society vs. Smt. Harpyari (2016) seeking the preservation of court proceedings. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing (2021) do not mandate the automatic recording of proceedings. It was the Petitioner’s grievance that the lack of video recording and livestreaming of proceedings had allowed the plaintiff in the said case to mislead the Court and obtain favourable orders based on false submissions.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the judgment in C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High CourtThrough Registrar General (2024) wherein it was observed that the High 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, infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative have also been recognized.
Noting the recent concerns arising on account of the misuse of live stream videos by content creators on social media, it was observed therein that necessary practical assessments are made and safeguards are introduced. The Bench said, “It has also been rightly noted that imposing rigid timelines without regard to technical challenges and resource allocation would not be prudent.”
Thus, observing that omnibus directions as sought by the petitioner, regardless of the technical issues and the safeguards, can’t be issued, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. Govt.nct of Delhi & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2106)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Nikhil Srivastava, Muskan Sharma, Petitioner In Person
Respondent: Advocates Harshita Nathrani, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Harshvardhan Thakur, Yash D.
