The absence of a specific legislation or law regulating audio/video recording of court proceedings precludes the issuance of a writ of mandamus for such recording.

Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to non intrusively audio-record judicial proceedings that involve his participation before this Court and to so record either by himself or through his advocate on record; to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ of any other nature or description to command the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Registrar General and the Registrar of this Court, not to interfere with the act of non-intrusive audio-recording by the Petitioner or his advocate on record in respect of judicial proceedings that involve the Petitioner; and to issue any further order/direction in the interest of justice, equity and in furtherance of or to secure any other objective or purpose as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. When the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge on 25.2.2011, he had passed the following order:

This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a declaration that the Petitioner was entitled to non-intrusively audio recording of judicial proceedings in those cases wherein the Petitioner himself was a party, he should be allowed to do so either by himself or through an Advocate-on-record. The other prayer is that a Writ of Prohibition should be issued against Respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. the Registrar General and Registrar of this Court not to interfere with the right of the Petitioner to do non-intrusively audio recording.

Audio/Video recording of the court proceedings in fact amounts to maintaining a record of the court proceedings. The record of the court proceedings is presently kept in print form by typing the orders or in the form of soft copy (plus hard copy). Typing was earlier done on manual typewriters, now-a-days it is done on computers. Filing itself is also done in the Court by way of soft copy or hard copy; soft copy in e-courts and hard copy in non e-courts. The Petitioner is seeking permission to record the proceedings during hearings of the Court in his own cases and one of the grounds of Petitioner seeking this recording is, so that the Petitioner is able to revive his memory as to what transpired in the Court and to keep a track of what was argued in the Court. He submits that he can use these recordings later on to show that a point was not argued or a point was argued but was not dealt with.

Any kind of recording which is done in the court of record of the court proceedings, if is used before higher forum in any judicial review must be authenticated recording duly authenticated by the Court. Presently there is no procedure available in the Court of authenticating the audio or video recording of the court proceedings. Permitting Petitioner for recording of proceedings for his private use has its own dangers. We know that the technology of audio/video recording is advanced these days but the technology of fabricating such recordings is equally advanced. Anybody can either delete the relevant portion from the recording or by creating similar frequency/pitch of voice in computer audio and video clips can be added in the recording. Therefore any recording sought to be used for judicial review before any forum etc. cannot be permitted by the Court unless there is a set procedure for authentication of the recording and a copy of the recording is preserved in the Court for comparison. However, recording for the purpose of personal use of the Petitioner does involve similar danger because the Petitioner may use the recording for publication or for showing it to the media and claim that it was his right to tell the truth despite the recording being unauthenticated. I, therefore consider that the recording if allowed by the Court must be an authenticated recording as per procedure laid down by the Court.

Since issue involved is not of recording in one particular Court but the issue involved is of recording of proceedings of