PIL for Regulatory Proceedings Recording Dismissed as Abuse: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has firmly dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge a resolution by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), which had effectively denied a request for mandatory audio and video recording of its proceedings. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad deemed the petition an "abuse of the process of the court."

The Quest for Transparency versus Legal Precedent

The petitioner, Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy, acting as a citizen litigant, approached the High Court to contest an MERC resolution dated September 4, 2018. Shenoy argued that audio and video recordings of regulatory proceedings were essential to ensure transparency, claiming that such records would highlight "serious lacunae and inconsistencies" in the Commission’s functioning, which could then be utilized as evidence to challenge their decisions.

To bolster his argument, the petitioner cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), which emphasized the necessity of open-court trials to build public confidence in the judicial process.

The Court’s Interpretation of "Open Court"

The High Court, however, found that the petitioner had severely misconstrued the principles laid out in Swapnil Tripathi . While the Supreme Court’s judgment firmly supports the concept of an open court to ensure objective and fair administration of justice, it does not provide individual litigants the right to record proceedings for the purpose of using them as evidence in a court of law.

Writing for the bench, the Court clarified that there is, in fact, a clear legal prohibition against recording court or tribunal proceedings for such purposes. "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," the Court observed.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the boundary between the right of the public to witness justice being done and the procedural rules governing evidence. The Court’s key observations include:

• "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."
• "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."

Final Verdict: Judicial Abuse

Beyond addressing the technical legal merits, the Court took a stern view of the nature of the petition itself. The bench openly expressed that the litigation, despite being framed as a matter of public interest, was likely motivated by "personal grudge or for seeking publicity."

As a final order, the Court dismissed the PIL (No. 93 of 2018), reinforcing the principle that the judicial integrity of a tribunal is maintained through the application of settled procedural laws, rather than the unchecked recording of sessions by litigants. This decision serves as a reminder that the label of "public interest" must be applied with genuine, merit-based objectives, rather than being used to circumvent established legal regulations.