SupremeToday Landscape Ad
AI Thinking

AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Swapnil Tripathi VS Supreme Court of India...

2018 0 Supreme(SC) 945 : The concept of live streaming of court proceedings in the Indian judiciary was introduced through a petition filed by public-spirited individuals seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large should be live streamed. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, accepted the recommendations of the Attorney General of India and directed the framing of model guidelines for live streaming. This marked the formal institutional adoption of the concept in the Indian judiciary, with the Court emphasizing that live streaming is an extension of the principle of open courts and is technologically feasible. The Court also suggested a pilot project to begin with, indicating that the concept was being implemented for the first time in the Indian judicial system through this specific judgment.Checking relevance for Court on its Own Motion VS Ravjot Singh...

2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1848 : The concept of livestreaming court proceedings in the Indian judiciary originated from the principle of open justice, which holds that courts are ordinarily open to the public. This principle was affirmed by the Hon''''ble Supreme Court of India in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, where it observed that virtual access to live court proceedings through technology would effectuate the right of access to justice, open justice, and public trial. The Court recognized that live streaming could extend access beyond the physical courtroom, especially due to logistical and infrastructural limitations, thereby enabling real-time access for litigants and the public. Subsequently, the Supreme Court framed ''''Comprehensive Guidelines for Live Streaming of Court Proceedings'''' and ''''Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings'''' under Article 145(1) of the Constitution, establishing a structured and phased approach with safeguards, including exclusive copyright over recordings and prohibitions on unauthorized recording or dissemination.Checking relevance for K. Kiran Kumar, S/o Shri K. Dharmarao VS Swaroopa W/o Kiran Kumar...

2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 274 : The concept of live streaming of court proceedings in the Indian judiciary was introduced and considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (through Secretary General), (2018) 10 SCC 639. The Court examined the practice in other countries such as Australia, Canada, China, England, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Germany, the International Criminal Court (ICC), Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States of America, and subsequently issued guidelines for live streaming in India. The Court recognized the feasibility of live streaming due to technological advancements and emphasized its potential to enhance transparency, good governance, accountability, and public access to justice, particularly in cases of constitutional and national importance.Checking relevance for Vysakh K. G. , S/o. Gokuldas VS Union Of India...

2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 950 : The concept of livestreaming of court proceedings in the Indian judiciary was first explicitly discussed and endorsed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [(2018) 10 SCC 639]. In this judgment, the Apex Court elaborated on the principles of open justice, judicial accountability, and transparency, and held that live-streaming of proceedings is crucial for the dissemination of knowledge about judicial proceedings and for granting full access to justice to litigants. The Court emphasized that access to justice cannot be complete without the litigant being able to see, hear, and understand the course of proceedings firsthand. The judgment also linked the concept to broader constitutional values under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, and recognized the public''''s right to receive information as a facet of this right. Additionally, the Court referenced constitutional provisions such as Article 145(4) of the Constitution, Section 153-B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as supporting the framework for live-streaming. Therefore, the concept evolved through judicial interpretation and constitutional jurisprudence, particularly through the landmark judgment in Swapnil Tripathi.Checking relevance for Seemant Kumar Singh VS Mahesh PS...

Checking relevance for State of Kerala, Represented By the Deputy Superintendent of Police VS Nowfal...

2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 75 : The concept of livestreaming court proceedings in the Indian judiciary was first formally recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [2018 (4) KLT Online 2046 (SC)]. In this judgment, the Apex Court held that live streaming of court proceedings is part of the access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the use of technology serves to virtually expand the court beyond the four walls of the courtroom. This landmark decision established the constitutional and procedural basis for livestreaming, marking the formal inception of the concept within the Indian judicial system.


AI Overview

AI Overview...

Taking Video Clipping as Evidence

  • Lack of Direct Evidence of Publication or Transmission: Multiple sources indicate that witnesses did not see the video clipping being made, published, or transmitted by the accused. For example, the court in 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120 states that no witnesses observed the obscene video being published or transmitted, and mere availability of the video on phones does not prove transmission or publication 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120.

  • Video Clipping as an Incident Record: In some cases, the video clipping is described as a record of the incident (e.g., rape), sometimes created secretly by co-accused, and shown during court proceedings. For instance, in SALIM Vs State - Allahabad_HC_UPHC011442922020, the video was made stealthily and recovered from a mobile phone, but the victim did not see or produce the clip herself

    SALIM Vs State - Allahabad

    .
  • Identification and Content Issues: Several sources mention that the victim or witnesses could not identify the accused in the video or confirm the content. For example, in 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1995, the voice in the video was inaudible, and only the complainant identified the spot, with no direct evidence linking the video to the accused 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1995. Similarly, in 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1223, the victim admitted she had not seen the video and did not know how or when it was made 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1223.

  • Questionable Authenticity and Chain of Evidence: Some reports highlight the absence of concrete evidence linking the video to the accused or establishing its authenticity, especially when the victim did not see the video being made. For instance, SALIM Vs State - Allahabad_HC_UPHC010422872021 notes the victim's ignorance about the video's creation and lack of evidence of her visit to Dehradun where the video purportedly was made

    State of U.P vs OVENDRA SINGH - Allahabad

    .
  • Legal and Procedural Considerations: Courts have emphasized the importance of authentic evidence. In 2021 0 Supreme(P&H) 459, the court dismissed bail requests, citing insufficient evidence, including lack of the victim's direct observation of the video being made 2021 0 Supreme(P&H) 459. Similarly, authorities are instructed to block circulation and remove videos from social media and the internet, recognizing the potential violation of privacy and the need to prevent defamation or further harm (

    SANJEEV KUMAR Vs State - Allahabad

    , 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3660, 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60742).
  • Impact of Video Clipping in Court Proceedings: Some instances involve the video being used in court to substantiate allegations, but courts remain cautious about the evidentiary value when the chain of custody or authenticity is unproven. Efforts are made to preserve and remove such videos from circulation to prevent misuse or defamation (

    SANJEEV KUMAR Vs State - Allahabad

    , 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3660, 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60742).

Analysis and Conclusion

The evidence suggests that video clipping, especially in cases of alleged sexual offenses, is often of questionable authenticity, with many witnesses not witnessing its creation or transmission. The courts emphasize the need for direct, credible evidence linking the video to the accused and caution against relying solely on the mere presence of videos on devices. Authorities are actively involved in blocking and removing such videos from social media and the internet to prevent further harm. Overall, taking video clipping as evidence requires rigorous verification of its source, chain of custody, and content to hold the accused accountable effectively.


References:

Admissibility of Video Clippings as Evidence in Indian Judicial Proceedings

Video Clippings as Evidence in Indian Courts

In today's digital age, smartphones and surveillance cameras capture moments that can make or break a legal case. But when it comes to taking video clipping as evidence, courts scrutinize every frame. Is a short video clip enough to convict or discipline? This blog dives into the nuances of video evidence admissibility in the Indian judiciary, drawing from landmark cases and legal principles. Whether you're facing a criminal trial, departmental inquiry, or civil dispute, understanding these rules is crucial.

Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Overview of Video Evidence in Indian Law

Video clippings have become increasingly common in courtrooms, from bribery traps to assault recordings. However, their admissibility hinges on authenticity, clarity, and context. Courts generally accept videos under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, especially Sections 65A and 65B for electronic records, but they must be proven genuine.

In one pivotal case, a video clipping showing a bribe demand was deemed clear and clinching evidence after the court reviewed it 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809. This highlights how direct viewing by judges can sway outcomes.

Admissibility Criteria for Video Clippings

1. Authenticity and Chain of Custody

To be admissible, videos must demonstrate they haven't been tampered with. Claims of morphing are common defenses, but courts reject them if the clip is compelling. For instance, despite the writ petitioner's argument that the video was morphed, the court upheld it as reliable 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809.

Other cases underscore the need for proper preservation:- No recovery from devices: The prosecution's case weakened when videos weren't retrieved from the accused's phones 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 485 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120.- Lack of production: The main evidence apparently was the video clipping, however, neither the first informant nor anybody else has submitted that video clipping which was an important piece of evidence

KRISHNA DINKAR PAWAR AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Bombay

.

2. Clarity and Relevance

The video must clearly depict the alleged act. Blurry or contextual clips often fail:- In a rape case, the video was made stealthily by a co-accused, but the victim didn't produce it, and no witnesses saw its creation

SALIM Vs State - Allahabad

.- She has pleaded ignorance about how and when the video clipping was made at Dehradun by the accused... neither found any evidence of her visit to Dehradun along with accused-respondent nor any such video clipping was delivered to him

State of U.P vs OVENDRA SINGH - Allahabad

.

Standards of Proof in Different Proceedings

Departmental vs. Criminal Cases

  • Departmental proceedings: Lower threshold of preponderance of probabilities. Video evidence sufficed to uphold disciplinary action in the bribe case 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809.
  • Criminal cases: Requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Absence of corroboration dooms many prosecutions, like failing to prove obscene video transmission despite its presence on phones 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120.

No witnesses observed the obscene video being published or transmitted, and mere availability of the video on phones does not prove transmission or publication 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120.

Common Challenges to Video Evidence

Defendants often attack videos on several fronts:- Morphed or edited claims: Rejected if court finds it clear 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809.- Inaudible or unidentified content: Voices inaudible, spots identified only by complainant, no direct link to accused 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1995.- No direct observation: Victims admitting they hadn't seen the video or didn't know its origin 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1223.- Consent or fabrication: Delayed FIRs and no recovered clips undermine threats of public posting 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1070. No video clipping was recovered and there is no allegation that the petitioner has destroyed the video clipping 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1070.

In sexual offense cases, courts note:- Victims not witnessing creation 2021 0 Supreme(P&H) 459.- Questionable statements in videographed probes: In the video clipping the prosecutrix is looking terrified and is not answering fluently and is taking long pauses... differences in the written statement and the video clipping 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 391.

Role in Specific Case Types

Sexual Offenses and Privacy Violations

Videos secretly recorded during alleged rapes are frequent but problematic. Bail denials occur if prima facie evidence exists, but acquittals follow without chain of custody

SANJEEV KUMAR Vs State - Allahabad (2021)

. Courts order blocking circulation: The Commissioner of Police... shall take steps to block the circulation of the impugned video clipping in the social media 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3660 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60742.

Defamation and False Allegations

False videos damage reputations: After investigation, the allegation in that video clipping was found to be false... the reputation of the company got damaged 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1888.

Other Contexts

Strengthening Video Evidence

To maximize impact:- Corroborate: Pair with witness testimony or device forensics.- Preserve chain: Document seizure and hash values for integrity.- Expert certification: Under Section 65B(4).- Address counters: Anticipate morphing claims with originals.

Authorities must liaise for removal: shall coordinate with CB-CID and if required, furnish the impugned video clipping and other evidences 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3660.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Video clippings can be powerful evidence in Indian courts if clear, authentic, and corroborated 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809. However, pitfalls like unproven transmission, missing recoveries, and authenticity doubts often render them insufficient 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 485. Courts balance technological advances with evidentiary rigor, especially in sensitive cases.

Key Takeaways:- Ensure clarity and context for admissibility.- Meet proof standards based on proceeding type.- Prepare for authenticity challenges with documentation.- Seek removal of harmful videos promptly.

For litigants, video evidence opens doors but demands meticulous handling. Stay informed on evolving digital evidence laws.

References:2023 0 Supreme(AP) 809 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 485 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 120 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 330

KRISHNA DINKAR PAWAR AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Bombay

SALIM Vs State - Allahabad

State of U.P vs OVENDRA SINGH - Allahabad

SANJEEV KUMAR Vs State - Allahabad (2021)

2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3660 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60742 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1888 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 82 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 391 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 164 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1070 #VideoEvidence, #IndianLaw, #DigitalProof
Chat Download
Chat Print
Chat R ALL
Landmark
Strategy
Argument
Risk
Chat Voice Bottom Icon
Chat Sent Bottom Icon
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top