The live-streaming of Bombay High Court proceedings seems to have missed the mark, months after it was launched amid much fanfare.

What began as a widely welcomed experiment in judicial transparency has now shrunk to just 8 actively streaming courtrooms at the principal seat. The Chief Justice’s bench and two senior criminal benches (among the top five judges of the High Court) have opted to switch off public access, despite being on the live‑streaming system.

Court officials and lawyers say that the infrastructure remains intact. Yet, widespread judicial caution about the “misuse” of streaming, particularly edited clips circulated on social media, appears to have narrowed the project’s reach.

A controversy that several advocates described as a “tipping point” involved a widely circulated video showing a judge asking a young woman lawyer to leave the courtroom. The footage, reportedly edited by the lawyer's father, went viral and invited public criticism of the judge’s conduct.

According to multiple sources, the incident angered members of the judiciary, prompting the decision to restrict live-streaming of proceedings rather than pursue action against those who circulated the video.

The Court’s website still hosts functional streaming links for each live bench.

However, visitors trying to join proceedings see only a notice:

“Public viewing of the proceedings has been disabled by the Court.”

“The hardware is fine. It’s only the public link that’s switched off,” a senior official confirmed.

Currently, only advocates-on-record in listed cases can join court proceedings online through secure video links. Litigants-in-person, journalists and other observers are excluded.

There is no notice posted on the Court’s website explaining this decision.

When Bar & Bench sought clarification, the High Court referred to its notice of November 10, as per which live-streaming would occur only with the approval of the presiding judges. The notice also designated the concerned judges as authorised officers empowered to grant or deny access to recording copies on request.

Following this policy shift, the Chief Justice’s court and two senior criminal benches limited access to appearing advocates.

The notice, however, did not explain why journalists, who earlier had observer access, currently stand barred.

According to a senior official involved in implementation,

“Most courtrooms were already equipped for video-conferencing. Only cameras, internet links and display units were added to go live.

While the live feed for the public has since been suspended, the same infrastructure now supports the High Court’s daily virtual hearings.

“The system remains functional and can be activated at a moment’s notice,” the official added.

The High Court’s live-streaming initiative was launched in July 2025 under then Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, when five benches agreed to stream their proceedings.

The project drew from the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 decision in Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India, which encouraged live-streaming of cases of constitutional importance.

It was envisioned as a step toward openness, allowing citizens, students, journalists and litigants to follow court proceedings without overcrowding the courtrooms.

Under the Bombay High Court’s Live Streaming and Recording Rules, 2023, all proceedings are to be streamed “subject to the consent of the Hon’ble Judge or Judges,” except for sensitive categories such as matrimonial disputes, sexual offences, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act matters or any hearing where publicity might harm justice or public order.

The Rules strictly prohibit unauthorised recording or sharing. Media or third parties who circulate clips without permission may face action under the Contempt of Courts Act, the IT Act or the Copyright Act. Only unedited, court‑approved footage can be used for reporting or educational purposes, the Rules state.

Despite these safeguards, the enthusiasm for openness began fading within months.

Clips of oral exchanges, sometimes taken out of context, started appearing on social media and video platforms, sparking unease among several judges.

A Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh Patil had, as early as August 2025, voiced anxiety about streaming cases involving crimes against women, warning that it could harm victim confidentiality.

Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who inaugurated the High Court’s streaming facility in July, flagged concerns about edited clips circulating online, but also called for clearer, nationwide guidelines on live-streaming.

Across India, different courts have adopted varied approaches.

The Supreme Court continues to live-stream proceedings in most courtrooms and always for constitutional matters.

The High Courts of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta and Karnataka also maintain live feeds for select courts, often via YouTube.

Former Supreme Court judge Abhay Oka, who introduced extensive virtual access as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, also favours default openness with narrow exceptions.

“Live-streaming is primarily about transparency in the decision‑making process and about letting the public, especially students and researchers, see advocacy and judging as it actually unfolds,” the retired judge told Bar & Bench.

Justice Oka said that much of the judiciary’s discomfort may be stemming not because of technology, but because of how snippets travel on social media.

Judges often probe lawyers by putting the “worst case” against them on record, sometimes sounding hostile to a party and yet ultimately ruling in that party’s favour after full submissions.

“When only those sharp exchanges are clipped and circulated, people can misunderstand the process of the court,” he said.

Even as a strong supporter of live-streaming in principle, he draws a firm privacy line. He believes that sensitive cases, specifically those involving privacy, family disputes or crimes against women, should remain off-limits.

“The governing principle is simple. Any case that significantly implicates an individual’s right to privacy under Article 21 should be kept outside live streaming by default,” he said.

On fears of recordings being misused, his personal view was that most such instances should be ignored. He pointed out that even before live-streaming or Zoom, litigants and lawyers in Bombay used hidden cameras and other devices to record proceedings.

“The difference now is that social media gives such recordings a wider audience," he said.

He stressed that a genuine mandate would require a full court decision, without which the choice to live-stream belongs to each judge and no administrative circular can override that autonomy.

Members of the Bar are also in favour of live-streaming and publishing live transcript of court hearings. Advocate Jamshed Mistry opined that live-streaming was also useful for students as they could observe how arguing on virtual platforms was different from arguing in person.

“You can play court proceedings in classrooms without disrupting court proceedings,” he said.

He also wondered why the principal bench of the High Court was not live-streaming proceedings if other courts were doing it.

“Whether they are lawyer, litigant, media or even judicial officers, why are they not allowed to view? What are we afraid of? The courts are open. If there are sensitive issues, there are safeguards to it,” Mistry said.

He also highlighted how the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat and international courts in Jamaica and Pakistan were streaming their court proceedings live.

"Having transcripts published will in fact make reporting accurate," he added.

Apart from transparency concerns, lawyers at the High Court face practical difficulties as a result of the selective streaming of courts. Advocate Hamza Lakdawala said that the current setup fails even lawyers who rely on virtual hearings. He also flagged inconsistent technology across benches, with some using Zoom and others using vConsol, a platform used by the High Court.

He said that access to virtual courtrooms is restricted until a case is called, increasing the risk of matters being passed over.

“In some benches, you can hear the judges but not see them; in others, live streaming is completely shut,” he said.

Lakdawala argued that while remote viewing is useful for clients who cannot be physically present, the real challenge lies in unreliable software and connectivity.

However, he pointed out that live-streaming is not an enforceable right under the Rules, because it depends on judicial consent. He suggested a possible middle path where the courts could allow authenticated access for litigants through OTP-based links, ensuring traceability if clips are misused.

The current restriction in a sense is self‑imposed. While eight benches at the principal seat and single‑judge courts in Goa, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur continue limited streaming under existing video‑conferencing rules, some other benches refuse to give public access.

The physical set‑up of cameras, servers and software remains operational but remain largely idle as most lawyers also prefer to appear physically.

As other High Courts continue embracing digital openness, the Bombay High Court faces a defining dilemma - whether to restore its public feed or accept that transparency, for now, must yield to caution.