Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Live-Stream Access Plea - 2026-01-20

Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on Plea Seeking Guidelines for Access to Live-Streamed Hearing Recordings

In a significant move towards enhancing judicial transparency, the Karnataka High Court has issued notice to its Registrar General on a petition filed by advocate Angad Kamath, challenging the denial of access to archived recordings of live-streamed court proceedings. The plea, heard by Justice B M Shyam Prasad, seeks the formulation of clear guidelines or a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for granting or refusing access to such recordings, particularly those not uploaded online. This development underscores ongoing tensions between promoting open access to justice and safeguarding the sanctity of court records under the Karnataka High Court Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules, 2021. With the matter posted for hearing on February 6, the outcome could set a precedent for how digital judicial archives are handled across Indian courts, impacting legal research, academic pursuits, and public accountability.

Background on Live-Streaming in Indian Courts

The advent of live-streaming court proceedings in India marks a pivotal shift towards a more transparent and inclusive judiciary, accelerated by the Supreme Court's landmark 2018 judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India . That decision mandated the live telecast of significant cases to demystify judicial processes and foster public trust. The COVID-19 pandemic further propelled this digital transformation, with virtual hearings becoming the norm and prompting high courts to formalize rules for recording and archiving proceedings.

In Karnataka, the High Court Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules, 2021, came into force on January 1, 2022. These rules apply not only to the High Court but also to subordinate courts and tribunals under its supervisory jurisdiction. Notified with the explicit aim of imbuing "greater transparency, inclusivity, and foster[ing] access to justice," the rules outline procedures for live-streaming, recording, and archiving hearings. Key provisions include the use of Form III for applications seeking access to recordings, emphasizing that such streams are intended to educate the public and promote understanding of the law.

However, the rules also impose restrictions. Rule 10, in particular, stipulates that recordings are restricted in their use and that archived footage does not constitute part of the official court record unless specifically directed by the relevant bench. This distinction has become the crux of disputes, as it balances open justice principles under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution—encompassing the right to know—with concerns over privacy, misuse, and the integrity of formal records. The Karnataka rules draw inspiration from similar frameworks in other high courts, such as those in Madras and Bombay, but lack explicit guidelines on access, leading to interpretive ambiguities that the current petition aims to address.

The Petition and Initial Rejection

The petition stems from a practical application of these rules by advocate Angad Kamath, who sought copies of a live-streamed hearing for academic use. Filing under Form III of the 2021 Rules, Kamath's request was rejected on December 30, 2025, by the Assistant Registrar (IT). The rejection relied heavily on Rule 10, which limits the usage of recordings and clarifies their non-official status absent a bench directive.

Kamath, appearing in person before the High Court, argued that this rejection constituted a misreading of the rules. He contended that the designated authority had conflated provisions on access with those on usage, thereby overstepping its mandate. As quoted in court proceedings, Kamath stated: “Rule 8 deals with access. Rule 10 deals with usage. What I have requested for is access, not usage.” He further elaborated: “Once I have access, for what purpose I put it to use, that the court will decide. But for me to have access first, only the designated authority has the power to determine,” adding that the authority had fallen into error in conflating use and access.

This argument highlights a core interpretive challenge: Rule 8 appears to govern the procedural grant of access, while Rule 10 addresses post-access restrictions. Kamath's plea posits that without clear guidelines, arbitrary denials undermine the rules' transparency goals, especially for non-commercial, academic purposes that could enrich legal scholarship.

Judicial Response and Proceedings

On Monday, January 19, 2026 (inferred from source dates), Justice B M Shyam Prasad, a seasoned judge known for handling administrative and procedural matters, issued notice to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court. The court acknowledged the petition's merit in seeking structured guidelines for archival recordings not publicly uploaded online, directing a response and scheduling the next hearing for February 6.

This interim step signals the court's willingness to intervene in rule implementation, potentially leading to an SOP that delineates criteria for access requests—such as purpose, sensitivity of the case, and safeguards against misuse. For legal professionals, this development is noteworthy, as it could standardize practices in a digital era where over 90% of Karnataka High Court proceedings are now live-streamed, generating vast archives ripe for analysis.

Related Legal Developments

While the Karnataka plea focuses on procedural transparency, other recent judicial actions reflect broader themes of access to justice and regulatory oversight. In a parallel challenge, petitions before the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court contest the Bar Council of India's (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium) with respect to Centres of Legal Education, 2025. Introduced on August 13, 2025, these rules impose a three-year ban on opening new law colleges or expanding existing ones without BCI approval, aimed at curbing the "unchecked mushrooming of substandard institutions" and safeguarding legal education's integrity. A similar plea by advocate Jatin Sharma pends in the Supreme Court, raising questions on whether such restrictions infringe on educational rights under Article 19(1)(g) and 21.

In criminal jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court recently denied bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the custodial death case linked to the 2017 Unnao rape. Sengar, convicted in December 2019 for raping a minor and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a 10-year term for the death of the survivor's father, had secured bail in the rape case—only for the Supreme Court to stay it following a CBI appeal. This decision underscores stringent bail norms in grave offenses, contrasting with the procedural leniency sought in the Karnataka matter.

Additionally, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a public interest litigation against Aaj Tak anchor Anjana Om Kashyap for allegedly calling sage Valmiki a "dacoit" during a broadcast. The bench emphasized Valmiki's legendary transformation from robber to sage, remarking, “From the devil, he became a good man. That is something good on his part that he changed for the better. Why are you so disturbed... You [community members] should be proud of him that he improved.” This ruling reinforces free speech protections under Article 19(1)(a), while counseling responsible media discourse on cultural figures.

These cases, though distinct, illustrate a judiciary grappling with balancing access, regulation, and expression in diverse contexts.

Legal Implications and Analysis

At its heart, Kamath's petition invites a nuanced interpretation of the 2021 Rules. Rule 8 empowers designated authorities to grant access, but without explicit criteria, rejections like the one on December 30 risk arbitrariness, potentially violating principles of natural justice. Rule 10's restrictions on usage are valid for preventing dissemination that could prejudice ongoing cases or violate privacy (e.g., under the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023), but they should not preempt access itself. Kamath's distinction—access as a gateway, usage as a subsequent check—aligns with Supreme Court precedents like Rajan Lakhanpal v. State (2015), which stressed procedural fairness in information requests.

Constitutionally, this ties into the evolving right to access public records, bolstered by the Right to Information Act, 2005, though courts remain exempt under Section 8(1)(e). The plea could expand "open court" doctrines, ensuring digital archives serve educational ends without compromising judicial autonomy. Critics might argue that unrestricted access invites cherry-picking of footage for misinformation, necessitating robust SOPs with tiers: e.g., redacted access for sensitive matters, full for public-interest cases.

Comparatively, the Madras High Court's 2022 rules allow limited academic access with permissions, suggesting Karnataka could adopt hybrid models. If successful, this petition may prompt the Supreme Court to issue pan-India guidelines, harmonizing disparate high court frameworks.

Potential Impacts on Legal Practice and the Justice System

For legal professionals, clearer guidelines on archival access would revolutionize practice. Advocates and researchers could routinely obtain recordings for case analysis, precedent study, or moot court preparations, reducing reliance on incomplete transcripts. Academics like Kamath would benefit immensely, enabling empirical studies on judicial trends—vital in an era where AI tools analyze proceedings for bias detection.

Broader systemic impacts include heightened public engagement: Live-streams already democratize justice for remote litigants, but accessible archives could empower civil society monitoring, curbing corruption perceptions. However, challenges persist—technological: Storage and retrieval costs; equitable: Ensuring access for under-resourced lawyers. The BCI moratorium, in tandem, highlights regulatory pushback; while curbing substandard colleges preserves quality, it may stifle innovation in legal education, including digital curricula on topics like this plea.

In criminal contexts, like the Unnao saga, archival access could aid appellate reviews, though bail denials remind us of substantive hurdles. Ultimately, this fosters a more accountable judiciary, aligning with e-Courts Project Phase III's digitization goals.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court's notice on advocate Angad Kamath's plea represents a critical juncture in navigating the digital frontiers of justice. By seeking SOPs for archival recordings, the petition not only challenges a specific rejection but advocates for a transparent ecosystem where access empowers without endangering integrity. As the February 6 hearing approaches, legal observers await whether Justice Shyam Prasad will mandate guidelines, potentially influencing national standards. In an increasingly virtual courtroom, such clarity is not merely procedural—it's essential for upholding the constitutional promise of justice for all.