Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two petitions together: a writ petition by Sunil Shantisarup Gupta and a criminal application by Indur Kartar Chhugani, both seeking directions for video recording of court proceedings. The petitioners prayed that the Court should arrange for video recording of proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2015 and generally direct such measures for all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. Additionally, Sunil Gupta sought permission for the public to obtain copies of court records on demand and for court proceedings to be telecast by the media and uploaded on the internet. Alternatively, the petitioners requested permission to video record their own proceedings at their own cost. The petition was filed against various respondents, including the Department of Legal Affairs, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, the Attorney General of India, the Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Bar Council of India, the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, several bar associations, and media organizations. Sunil Gupta, a citizen and litigant, argued that in the era of information technology, the judiciary should embrace transparency by allowing digital video recording. He contended that judicial proceedings are public affairs, and the public has a right to witness them. He cited examples from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and other jurisdictions where court proceedings are recorded and telecast. The petitioner submitted that video recording would enhance public understanding of court processes, improve accountability, reduce abuse of court procedures, and alleviate overcrowding in court premises. He also highlighted the potential long-term cost benefits of transitioning to technologically advanced recording systems. The judgment excerpt provided does not include the respondents' arguments or the court's final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should issue directions for video recording of court proceedings, telecasting, and uploading on the internet, and whether an individual has a right to video record proceedings in which he is a party.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 31
Writ Petition No.1587 of 2015; Criminal Application No.1240 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel
Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Pravin Samdani, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Indur K. Chhugani (in person), Mr. J.P. Yagnik
Sunil Shantisarup Gupta; Indur Kartar Chhugani
Department of Legal Affairs & Ors.; State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition and Criminal Application seeking directions for video recording of court proceedings and related reliefs.
Remedy Sought
Directions to video record proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 951/2015 and generally all court and tribunal proceedings; allow public access to records; permit media telecast; upload proceedings online; alternatively, permit petitioners to video record their own proceedings.
Filing Reason
To enhance transparency, public access to justice, accountability of the judiciary, and to educate the public about court processes.
Issues
Whether the High Court should issue directions for video recording of court proceedings, telecasting, and uploading on the internet, and whether an individual has a right to video record proceedings in which he is a party.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that in the information and technology era, the judiciary should adopt digital video recording to ensure transparency and accountability.
Judicial proceedings are public affairs and the public has a right to witness them; examples from UK, USA, and other jurisdictions were cited.
Video recording would improve public understanding, reduce overcrowding in courts, and expose abuse of court procedures.
Long-term cost benefits of advanced recording systems were highlighted, with examples from Maryland and Kazakhstan.
Sunil Gupta contended that allowing recording would strengthen public faith in the judiciary and educate the masses.
Respondents' arguments are not included in the provided judgment excerpt.
Judgment Excerpts
The two petitions, one by the party in person and the other by one Sunil Shantisarup Gupta, seek a common relief, viz., that this Court should issue directions to arrange for video recording of the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2015, and generally should direct that adequate steps and measures be initiated for video recording the proceedings of this Court and all Courts subordinate to it so also Tribunals within its jurisdiction.
The Petitioner states that in an era of information, and especially one driven by technology, the judiciary cannot turn a blind eye or be anaemic to change. This Court being one of record, it should, apart from conventional methods, allow digitial video recording of Court proceedings. The proceedings could only then become more responsive and accountable.
Procedural History
The two petitions were filed and heard together by the Bombay High Court on 7 January 2016.
