The Delhi High Court has underscored the importance of adequate preparation before expanding live streaming of judicial proceedings, warning that issuing omnibus directions could potentially compromise the quality, confidentiality, and security of court processes.
Justice Sachin Datta referred to a previous ruling acknowledging the Delhi High Court’s ongoing efforts on the administrative side to address the logistical and infrastructural challenges of live streaming court proceedings.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Allows Accused In Multiple Cases To Attend Trial Via Video Conferencing
“The initiation or expansion of live streaming must be preceded by adequate preparation to ensure that the quality and security of judicial proceedings remain intact. This is particularly crucial in light of concerns regarding the misuse of live stream videos by content creators on social media,” observed the Court.
The Court further emphasized the need for practical assessments and necessary safeguards before implementation. It rejected a petition filed by Bharat Bhushan Sharma, which sought directions to ensure compliance with live streaming and video recording guidelines set by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court noted that its technical committees are actively engaged in expanding live streaming but cautioned against imposing rigid timelines without considering technical challenges and resource allocation.
Read also: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest and Remand: Emphasizes Compliance with Section 50 of CrPC
“Issuing any omnibus directions, irrespective of the technical issues and safeguards required, could lead to unintended consequences, undermining judicial process quality, confidentiality, and security,” the Court ruled.
The Court reaffirmed its stance, highlighting that the administrative side is proactively addressing the matter. It also referred to its previous ruling in C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High Court, wherein it recognized that judicial intervention to mandate specific actions or timelines would be premature and inappropriate.
“The Delhi High Court is actively working to address infrastructural challenges associated with expanding live streaming. However, premature enforcement without adequate groundwork may jeopardize the security and efficiency of the judiciary.”
Petition and Court Observations
Bharat Bhushan Sharma, the petitioner, sought enforcement of Supreme Court directives on live streaming, citing the ruling in Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India, which emphasized that access to justice is an essential component of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also referenced the Supreme Court’s Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, highlighting their relevance to High Courts and subordinate courts. Additionally, the Delhi High Court’s notification dated January 13, 2023, which prescribes rules for archival, access, and retention of recorded proceedings, was cited in the plea.
Read also: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest and Remand: Emphasizes Compliance with Section 50 of CrPC
Despite these references, the Court pointed out that implementing live streaming is an ongoing process requiring careful evaluation. It noted that the petitioner's grievance regarding a specific case was dismissed earlier, as the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing (2021) do not mandate automatic recording of proceedings unless applied for beforehand.
The petitioner also filed an RTI request regarding the implementation of live streaming and video recording, receiving a response that such services are presently limited to Court No. 1 as per the High Court’s directions.
Additionally, an Unstarred Question was raised in the Rajya Sabha, inquiring about the allocation of funds for live streaming infrastructure. The Ministry of Law and Justice responded that ₹112.26 crores had been allocated under the eCourts Project Phase-III for the establishment of a Courtroom Live Audio-Visual Streaming System (CLASS). However, the High Court noted that despite allocated funds, comprehensive infrastructure has yet to be implemented across all courts.
In its judgment, the Court maintained that rigid timelines and blanket orders on live streaming expansion would not be feasible. Given the ongoing technical assessments, the Court dismissed the petition.
“The Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner’s prayer, as the administrative side is already engaged in addressing the challenges and ensuring a secure and effective live streaming mechanism,” Justice Datta ruled.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s cautious approach to live streaming expansion, emphasizing the importance of thorough preparation, infrastructure readiness, and security considerations.
Title: BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
