Litigants can't seeks archived recordings of court proceedings without judicial order: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently held that litigants do not have a right to seek copies of archived audio-visual recordings of court proceedings.

Justice CM Poonacha said Rules 8 and 10 of the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, do not confer any such right on an applicant in the absence of a specific judicial direction.

“It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court” the Court observed.

The Court made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by 72-year-old A Sathyanarayana Swamy. He had challenged the High Court administration's decision to reject his application seeking copies of archived recordings of proceedings in an appeal.

Swamy had submitted an application under Rule 8(3) of the 2021 Rules. However, the application was rejected by the High Court administration by relying on Rule 10(1)(ii).

The communication stated that archived data does not automatically become part of the official record of court proceedings unless the bench expressly directs otherwise. Consequently, the administration declined to provide the recordings sought by the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the decision, Swamy moved the High Court seeking to quash the communication and obtain access to the archived recordings.

The petitioner contended that Rule 8(3) specifically allows filing of applications to seek copies of recordings that have not been uploaded to the Court's website or other digital platforms.

He also challenged the rejection as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Apart from seeking access to the recordings, the petitioner requested the Court to direct the authorities to frame and publish clear guidelines or standard operating procedures governing the exercise of powers under Rule 8(3).

The Court examined Rule 10(1)(ii) of the 2021 Rules, which provides:

“The Archival Data shall not constitute the official record of the Court Proceedings unless otherwise directed by the Bench”.

The administration had relied on this provision to explain that archived recordings could not be made available for the purpose sought unless a specific judicial direction made them part of the official record.

On examining Rules 8 and 10 together, the Court concluded that the provisions did not confer an enforceable right on a petitioner to obtain copies of archived recordings in the absence of a specific order by the bench.

“In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise," the Court ruled.

Advocate Girish Hegde represented petitioner.

[Read Judgment]