Sanchayita Lahkar

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking implementation of live streaming and video recording of proceedings across all courtrooms. The Single Bench of  Justice Sachin Datta held that the issue pertains to administrative and technical execution, stating that “judicial intervention to mandate specific actions or timelines would be both premature and inappropriate”. The Court recorded that committees within the High Court are already engaged in resolving infrastructural challenges and that “necessary practical assessments are being made and safeguards are being introduced” to support future expansion. The Court found no ground to issue mandatory directions as sought in the petition, noting that such matters fall within the scope of internal administrative procedures.

The petitioner filed a writ petition invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of directions to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and other authorities to ensure compliance with the directions laid down by the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court regarding live streaming and video recording of judicial proceedings.

Also Read: "Supreme Court Criticises 'Casual and Cursory' Quashing of Cheating Case, Orders Trial Under Section 420 IPC: 'Least Expected Was Reasoned Assessment'"

In support of the plea, the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India [W.P.(C) No. 1232 of 2018; AIR 2018 SC 4806], where it was held that access to court proceedings is an integral part of the right to access justice under Article 21. The Court had observed that public observation of courtroom procedures, particularly in matters of public importance, would strengthen transparency and the concept of “justice at the doorstep.”

The petitioner contended that pursuant to the said judgment, the e-Committee of the Supreme Court had formulated the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings. These model rules mandated the creation of technical infrastructure in High Courts and subordinate courts to enable real-time access to proceedings. Following this, the Delhi High Court issued Notification No. 02/RULES/DHC dated 13.01.2023 (corrected by Corrigendum No. 180/RULES/DHC dated 03.11.2023), providing detailed procedures for live streaming, archival, access, and retention of court recordings. Rule 7 of this notification stipulates that recordings must be archived and made accessible subject to prescribed protocols.

The petitioner submitted that, despite these provisions, the notifications had not been effectively implemented. It was argued that in the petitioner’s previous civil suit [CS(OS) 381/2016], an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for preservation of proceedings dated 03.09.2024. The application was dismissed on the ground that the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2021, do not mandate automatic recording and require a prior application, which was not filed.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted I.A. No. 41702/2024 in the same suit, seeking video recording of proceedings dated 09.10.2024. This application was pending before the Court at the time of the writ petition. Additionally, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2024, seeking implementation-related information. In response dated 06.11.2024, it was stated that no recordings of proceedings existed and that live streaming was limited to Court No. 1.

The petitioner also referred to Unstarred Question No. 1232 raised in the Rajya Sabha, where the Ministry of Law and Justice confirmed that ₹112.26 crores had been earmarked under the e-Courts Project Phase III for the Courtroom Live Audio-Visual Streaming System (CLASS). Despite this allocation, the petitioner submitted that no uniform infrastructure had been implemented.

It was further submitted that due to lack of recording, adverse orders were passed in the aforementioned suit, allegedly based on false representations by the opposing party. The petitioner sought directions to ensure recording and availability of proceedings in nine specific cases, creation of access systems akin to e-inspection modules, and correction of existing procedural infrastructure.

The Court examined the reliefs sought in light of its previous decision in C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High Court Through Registrar General, W.P.(C) 3926/2024, where similar issues were raised. In that case, the Court had already addressed the feasibility and scope of issuing mandatory directives for live streaming. Justice Sachin Datta recorded that logistical feasibility, resource allocation, and technical readiness were essential preconditions for any comprehensive implementation.

The Court stated that “the Delhi High Court is actively engaged in addressing the logistical and infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative”. It was observed that “the phased implementation and the ongoing deliberations within the Delhi High Court’s committees” demonstrated that internal mechanisms were in motion. Therefore, directing administrative action through judicial decree was considered inappropriate.

On the aspect of operational readiness, the Court recorded that “the existing infrastructure and the gradual expansion plans are based on practical assessments by the High Court’s technical committees”. It further noted that “prematurely extending these services without adequate preparation may compromise the quality and security of judicial proceedings”.

Referring to one of the petitioner’s prayers, which requested the Court to direct the administrative wing to expedite the process, the Court stated that such advice was “unnecessary as the High Court is already committed to enhancing transparency through measured steps”. Rigid timelines without consideration for infrastructural readiness and technical dependencies were found to be inappropriate.

Regarding the request to provide copies of recordings in nine specific cases mentioned in the writ petition, the Court noted that those matters were listed before the Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in Court No. 42. It recorded that the current live streaming infrastructure is functional only in Court No. 1 and Court No. 39. Accordingly, it observed that “the hearing in those cases are not being conducted under the Rules mentioned hereinabove” but rather under the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021, which under Rule 3(vi), expressly prohibits the recording of proceedings conducted through video conferencing.

With respect to the prayer for general availability of copies of recordings conducted through live streaming, the Court stated that this was governed by rules framed in consideration of privacy and confidentiality. The Court noted that “expanding access without considering these factors could potentially lead to misuse and raise security concerns”. Adjustments to these protocols were characterised as technical issues better addressed by administrative and IT experts.

Also Read: Disinterest in Sex and Forcing Spiritual Conformity Caused Mental Cruelty, Says Kerala High Court While Affirming Divorce for Denial of Conjugal Relations and Emotional Neglect

The Court held that the “judicial mechanism is not the appropriate forum for the Petitioner to suggest operational methodologies or to influence administrative decisions related to the court’s procedural adaptations”. Observing that “substantial progress” had already been made by the committees of the Court, it recorded that such internal administrative evolution must be allowed to proceed within the framework of institutional autonomy.

The Court dismissed the writ petition along with any pending applications. It recorded that the subject of live streaming involves administrative discretion and technical assessments and that issuing broad directions without accounting for existing limitations “could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes”. The Court stated that the implementation of such measures is already under consideration by the High Court’s technical and administrative committees and that suggestions regarding operational procedures are outside the scope of judicial adjudication. The matter was closed with the observation that phased progress is ongoing and must be allowed to continue without premature judicial interference.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, Advocate; Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate for Respondent
Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Mr. Harshvardhan Thakur, and Mr. Yash D., Advocates

Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Sharma vs Govt. NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2106
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2888/2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]