The right to a public trial in open court does not Grant litigants the right to video record proceedings for use as evidence, and PILs filed for personal reasons or publicity are an abuse of process.

P.C. :

Challenging the resolution dated 4th September 2018 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short, MERC), this Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Mr. Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy who states that he is a public spirited individual and a businessman.

2. The petitioner states that he has no personal interest in the matter and he has challenged the resolution dated 4th September 2018 of the MERC in the larger public interest. The petitioner states that after the proceedings before the MERC in which he has participated and argued the matter the impugned resolution was taken by the MERC which is not in public interest. The petitioner appearing in-person refers to the decision in “ Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India ” (2018) 10 SCC 639 to submit that the video

recording of the proceedings of the MERC shall be in consonance with the public interest inasmuch as the discrepancies and lacunae of proceedings thereof can be shown and utilized as evidence to challenge the decisions of the MERC.

3. In “Swapnil Tripathi”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that public trial in the open Court is essential for healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Such open Court trial is necessary to instill public confidence in the administration of justice and, therefore, the judicial Tribunals, Courts etc. must generally hear causes in open Court and must permit the public admission to the courtroom. These observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Swapnil Tripathi” seem to have been misconstrued by the petitioner appearing in-person who takes the position that the impugned resolution shall not be in public interest. The decision in “Swapnil Tripathi” and the other statutory provisions do not permit a litigant to record the Court proceedings and to use the same as evidence. There is, in fact, a prohibition not to record the Court proceedings much less to be used as evidence in a Court of law. The submission made by the petitioner in-person that audio/video recording of the proceedings of the MERC shall reveal serious lacunae and inconsistencies in such proceedings and, therefore, it is necessary to continue with audio/video recording of the proceedings of the MERC is bereft of any substance. Such a plea is against the settled principles in law that video recording of the proceedings of a Tribunal or the Court cannot be used as evidence.

4. This writ petition labeled as Public Interest Litigation does not seem to be in the nature of a public interest litigation. Filing of such public interest litigations is abuse of the process of the Court and must be deprecated. Notwithstanding the petitioner in-person stating

that he has filed other public interest litigation, this one is clearly out of a personal grudge or for seeking publicity.

5. Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 93 of 2018 is dismissed.