In a packed courtroom on Tuesday morning, the Bombay High Court firmly pushed back against a PIL demanding mandatory audio-video recording of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) proceedings. The judges looked slightly exasperated as they clarified, almost point-by-point, why the plea simply didn’t hold legal ground.
Background
The petitioner, businessman-activist Kamlakar Shenoy, argued that MERC hearings lacked transparency and that recording them would highlight what he called 'inconsistencies' in the process. He also insisted that such recordings should be admissible as evidence in other proceedings a claim the Bench found legally unsound.
Court's Observations
Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad stressed that the law already forbids recording judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The bench observed,
"A litigant is not permitted to use any record of court proceedings as evidence. There is a clear prohibition against recording proceedings, much less using them in court."
At one point, the Chief Justice remarked that Shenoy had misunderstood past Supreme Court rulings on open trials. Open trials, he explained, were intended to encourage transparency, not to authorise creating unofficial evidence. The judges also questioned the intent behind the PIL, hinting that it lacked genuine public interest.
"This appears more like private interest litigation," the bench noted sharply, adding that filing such petitions “is an abuse of the judicial process."
The Court did not seem convinced by the claim that recordings would expose shortcomings in MERC’s functioning. The bench observed,
"It is against settled principles of law to treat video recordings of tribunal proceedings as evidence."
Decision
The Court ultimately dismissed the PIL, upholding MERC’s 2018 resolution prohibiting audio-video recording of its sessions. The matter ended decisively, with the Bench reiterating that no court or tribunal proceedings may be recorded or relied upon as evidence.
Case Title:- Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
