Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Universal Video Recording, Reaffirming Live-Streaming Framework

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has once again closed the door on the mandatory video recording of all court proceedings and the preservation of such records as a matter of right for litigants and lawyers. On Monday, October 6, a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, holding that the core issue of transparency through live-streaming has already been settled by the Court in its landmark 2018 Swapnil Tripathi judgment.

The petition, filed by Nedumpara and other advocates, sought sweeping systemic reforms to enhance transparency, ensure accountability, and curb the alleged "ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants" within the Indian judicial system. It argued that universal video recording was the "only effective remedy" to guarantee an equal opportunity of hearing and end a culture of discourtesy and bias.

However, the Bench was unconvinced, stating that the matter was no longer open for fresh consideration in a writ petition. Justice Manmohan pointedly told Nedumpara, who was arguing in person, "Live streaming and recording were already addressed in Swapnil Tripathi . You filed a substantive writ petition which was disposed of. The issue has been decided." After a brief hearing, the plea was dismissed.

This decision effectively reaffirms the existing legal framework, which encourages live-streaming of proceedings of constitutional and national importance for the larger public interest, but stops short of mandating the recording and preservation of every case for individual access.

A Decade-Long Campaign for Accountability

Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara's petition was the culmination of a persistent, decade-long campaign for greater judicial transparency. The plea detailed a history of efforts, beginning with a 2010 letter to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and a 2014 meeting with then Chief Justice of India, R.M. Lodha, who had considered the feasibility of audio recordings.

The legal battle formally began in 2016 when Nedumpara petitioned the Bombay High Court for mandatory video recording. That plea was famously dismissed with the observation that such a measure would “reduce the Court into a circus.” This order was subsequently challenged and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic later forced the judiciary to adopt virtual hearings nationwide, demonstrating the technological feasibility of recording proceedings. The petitioners argued that despite this technological leap, a formal mechanism for preserving and providing access to these digital records as a matter of right had not been established, leaving a critical gap in accountability.

Allegations of Systemic Bias and Judicial Discourtesy

At the heart of the petition were serious allegations of systemic bias and disrespectful conduct within courtrooms. The plea contended that a culture of "undue obsequiousness" is often demanded from lawyers, and that judges frequently treat both counsel and litigants with discourtesy and humiliation.

To substantiate these claims, the petition cited several recent and high-profile incidents: * A young lawyer collapsing in the Bombay High Court after being harshly reprimanded by a Bench. * A viral video in which a High Court judge was seen referring to a junior advocate as “garbage of the court.”

The petitioners argued that these were not isolated incidents but symptomatic of a deeper malaise where junior advocates and ordinary litigants are systematically disadvantaged. The plea alleged that matters argued by juniors are often dismissed perfunctorily, while cases handled by designated Senior Advocates or well-connected lawyers receive disproportionate judicial time and attention.

The petition also mounted a statistical challenge to the functioning of the Supreme Court itself, particularly in its handling of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136. It claimed that the average disposal time for an SLP is a mere 93 seconds , a figure the petitioners argued undermines the very concept of a fair hearing and obstructs access to justice for citizens appealing to the nation's highest court.

Broader Critique of Judicial Functioning

Beyond the primary demand for video recording, the petition launched a critique of fundamental judicial practices in India. It questioned the country's unique adherence to the doctrine of precedents based on the numerical strength of a bench rather than the "soundness of its reasoning."

The plea described as "anomalous" the rule that a smaller bench cannot disagree with a coordinate or larger bench without referring the matter to an even larger one. This practice, it argued, compels the Chief Justice to frequently constitute 3, 5, or 7-judge benches, consuming valuable judicial time that could be devoted to the cases of ordinary litigants.

The petitioners sought a series of comprehensive directions, including: 1. A declaration that transparency and accountability require mandatory video recording of all proceedings. 2. Preservation of such records for at least six months with access rights for stakeholders. 3. Guidelines to end the ill-treatment of advocates and ensure an equal opportunity of hearing. 4. The removal of what it termed "undue restrictions" on public access to courts, particularly in High Courts like Kerala and Madras.

The Shadow of Swapnil Tripathi

The Supreme Court's dismissal rested squarely on its 2018 judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India . In that case, a three-judge bench had declared that access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that live-streaming proceedings would enhance judicial transparency. The judgment paved the way for the Supreme Court's e-Committee to formulate the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings , which provide a framework for High Courts to adopt.

The Bench in the present case concluded that since the broader principle had been established and Nedumpara's own previous petitions had been dismissed, the current writ petition was not maintainable. The court's stance implies that while transparency is a recognized constitutional goal, the specific mechanism for achieving it—live-streaming for public interest, not individual recording on demand—has been settled.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's preference for a centrally regulated, public-facing transparency model over a litigant-driven, rights-based approach to accessing court records. While the doors to many courtrooms are now virtually open to the public, the fight for an individual's right to obtain a recording of their own hearing has, for now, been concluded.