A petition has been filed before the Karnataka High Court seeking the issuance of guidelines on the factors that should determine the grant or denial of access to archived recordings of live-streamed court proceedings [Angad Kamath v. High Court of Karnataka & Ors.].
The petition was filed by a lawyer after he was denied access to a recorded court proceeding in a particular case.
The lawyer has now challenged the Assistant Registrar's decision to deny him the said recording, and also raised concerns about the High Court rules being silent on the grounds on which access to such recordings can be denied.
After hearing preliminary submissions, Justice BM Shyam Prasad on Monday sought the response of the High Court's administrative side, the Registrar (IT) and the Assistant Registrar (IT) to the plea.
The matter will be heard next on February 6.
The petition before the Court is tied to a request made by the petitioner under the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, seeking copies of a live-streamed hearing for academic use.
The request was rejected by the Assistant Registrar (IT) on December 30, 2025, who relied on Rule 10 of the 2021 Rules. Rule 10 restricts the use of recordings and clarifies that archived footage does not form part of the official court record unless the relevant Court Bench directs otherwise.
This rejection has now been challenged before the Court.
Appearing in person, the petitioner, advocate Angad Kamath, argued that the assistant registrar's rejection of his request was based on a misreading of the rules.
“Rule 8 deals with access. Rule 10 deals with usage. What I have requested for is access, not usage,” the petitioner said.
Advocate Kamath contended that the designated authority had incorrectly relied on provisions governing how recordings may be used, rather than whether access should be granted in the first place.
“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,” he said, adding that the authority had fallen into error in conflating use and access.
Under the 2021 Rules, parties can seek access to recordings of court proceedings that are not in the public domain. However, advocate Kamath today pointed out that the rules do not clearly lay down the grounds for granting or rejecting such requests, which has led to inconsistent decision-making.
“Rule 8.3… is silent on the purposes for which access can be granted. Which is why one of the prayers I have asked is for guidelines to be laid down," he said.
His plea calls on the High Court to direct its administration to frame and publish clear guidelines or standard operating procedures (SOP) on how access under Rule 8(3) should be granted or refused, including timelines, reasons for decisions, and a review mechanism.
The absence of such safeguards could lead to arbitrary decision-making and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, the petitioner has pointed out.
During the hearing today, the Bench questioned how the petitioner intended to get past the restrictions under Rule 10, noting that archived recordings do not automatically qualify as official court records.
In response, advocate Kamath drew attention to Rule 10(2)(iv), which allows the court to permit the use of authorised recordings for training, academic, and educational purposes.
He informed the Court that he sought access to a recording for academic and performance evaluation purposes.
The petitioner today also sought an interim direction so that the specific live stream recording he had requested is preserved. He noted that under the existing rules, recordings are kept only for a limited period and could be deleted thereafter.
The Court, however, declined to pass any such interim order today but granted liberty to the petitioner to seek such relief on the next date.