Back
Kerala High Court Initiates Against Advocate Nedumpara for Unauthorised Recordings
In a stern response to the unauthorised recording and dissemination of court hearings, the has initiated proceedings against . The action follows a Registry report revealing that Nedumpara had been recording proceedings and uploading them to his YouTube account, in clear violation of statutory rules and a recent interim order by the .
Contempt in the Digital Age: When a Lawyer Records Proceedings
The case stems from a report submitted by the High Court's Registry which disclosed that Nedumpara, an advocate, had been unauthorisedly recording and uploading court proceedings to his YouTube channel despite repeated warnings. The videos, published on both YouTube and X (formerly Twitter), purport to show proceedings of the High Court. The court took an extremely serious view of the matter, noting that such conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
The Dual Legal Frameworks Breached
The court found that Nedumpara's actions violated , which explicitly states: “The confidentiality of proceedings conducted under these Rules shall be maintained by all Participants and persons present, and no broadcasting, photographing, publishing, recording, sharing or usage of such proceedings, either wholly or in part, shall be made except with the written permission of the High Court, Court or Forum.”
Further compounding the violation, the court highlighted that the unauthorised uploads also ran contrary to the interim order dated passed by the in In that order, the directed that no extraction, dissemination, monetisation, posting, re-posting, uploading, transmitting, modification, storing, or hosting of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings should take place on social media or any other digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the or the Registrar Generals of the jurisdictional High Courts.
Titles That Crossed the Line
The court further held that the titles under which the two videos were published— “You be the judge. Cameras can't lie. Denial of Justice to MSMEs. Watch full video on my YouTube and X” and “Cameras cannot lie. Denial of Justice to MSMEs. You be the judge.” —constituted within the meaning of . The court observed that these titles, combined with the unauthorised recording, amounted to a and interfere with the administration of justice.
Court's Key Observations
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. made the following incisive observations:
“We have taken serious note of the report submitted by the Registry disclosing unauthorised recording and uploading of court proceedings to the YouTube account of the . It appears that the had been unauthorisedly recording and uploading the court proceedings in the YouTube account in spite of repeated warnings in the past and being fully aware that such unauthorised recording and uploading is contrary to .”
On the contemptuous nature of the video titles, the court observed:
“The titles under which the two present videos have been published, namely ‘You be the judge. Cameras can't lie. Denial of Justice to MSMEs. Watch full video on my YouTube and X’ and ‘Cameras cannot lie. Denial of Justice to MSMEs. You be the judge.’, respectively constitute within the meaning of .”
Immediate Consequences and Next Steps
While the court refrained from formally issuing a at this stage, it directed the Department to serve notice on the within one week, with the matter returnable on . In a significant interim measure, the court ordered that Nedumpara shall not be allowed to participate in any court proceedings in Kerala through online or virtual mode until further orders . The court also directed that its order be circulated to all judges of the High Court and District Courts, and be immediately communicated to the Registrar (Computerisation)–cum-Director (IT) for compliance.
The case underscores the judiciary's firm stance on protecting the confidentiality of court proceedings, especially in an era where digital platforms enable rapid dissemination. The outcome of the contempt proceedings, now slated for September, will be closely watched by the legal fraternity as a marker on the boundaries of permissible conduct by advocates in the digital realm.
