Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has stated that lawyers being permitted to enter court proceedings through video conferencing does not grant them the right to record and circulate such proceedings. Justice Gopinath P. took note of the recording and circulation of court proceedings by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara through WhatsApp and observed that such actions prima facie amount to contempt of court.

During the proceedings, it was brought to the court’s attention that recordings of the case hearings were circulated in various WhatsApp groups, including those of borrowers and bank law officers. The court recorded:

"It has been brought to the notice of this Court that proceedings of this Court in these cases have been recorded and circulated in various WhatsApp groups including WhatsApp groups of borrowers, law officers of various banks etc."

Also Read: Supreme Court : Expulsion ‘Excessive and Unnecessary,’ Reinstates Bihar Legislative Council Member Citing Constitutional Safeguards

When the issue was raised before Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, appearing for the petitioners, he submitted that it was his right to record and circulate the proceedings. The court recorded his submission:

"Mr. Nedumpara submitted that it is his right to record the proceedings of this Court and circulate it in any manner that he deems fit. He states that transparency is absolutely essential in judicial proceedings and therefore he has a right to record and circulate the proceedings of this Court."

The court referred to the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Attending of Court Proceedings through Video Conferencing before the High Court of Kerala, which prohibit the recording of court proceedings in any manner. The court recorded:

"The ‘Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021’, as also the ‘Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Attending of Court Proceedings through Video Conferencing before the High Court of Kerala’ expressly prohibit the recording of the proceedings of the Court in any manner and therefore the fact that the Lawyers are permitted to enter the proceedings through video conferencing does not mean that the proceedings can be recorded and circulated."

The court referred to Arundhati Roy, In Re [(2002) 3 SCC 343], where the Supreme Court observed:

"The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself."

The court stated its prima facie opinion that the recording and circulation of proceedings violated judicial norms and constituted contempt:

"I am prima facie of the opinion that the recording of proceedings of this Court and circulating it in the manner indicated above constitute contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and lowers the dignity of this Court especially when the Rules of this Court prohibit recording of the proceedings of this Court."

Also Read: "Reopening Settled Cases Will Not Be Tolerated": Madras High Court Fines Government Rs. 5 Lakh for Challenging Aided College Appointment

In view of the above, the court directed the Registry to place the judgment before the Chief Justice:

"Therefore, I direct the Registry to place this judgment before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to consider whether this issue should be taken up on the judicial side by a Bench to be nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Ordered accordingly."

The observation was made in a batch of petitions filed by companies challenging loan recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.

Case Title: M/s M. D. Esthappan and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20437
Case Numbers: WP(C) No. 45166 of 2024 & WP(C) No. 46514 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gopinath P

[Read/Download order]