Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Immediate Implementation of Live Streaming of Court Proceedings

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that sought compliance with the directions for live streaming and video recording of court proceedings. The petitioner, Bharat Bhushan Sharma, had contended that despite the Supreme Court’s directive in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (W.P. (C) No. 1232 of 2018), and subsequent guidelines issued by the Supreme Court’s e-Committee, the Delhi High Court had failed to adequately implement live streaming of proceedings as mandated.

The petition raised concerns over transparency and access to justice, arguing that the absence of live streaming and video recordings of court proceedings hindered the public’s ability to witness judicial actions, particularly in cases impacting public interest. The petitioner claimed that the lack of such technological provisions allowed certain litigants to mislead the court and secure favorable judgments based on false submissions.

However, Justice Sachin Datta, in a detailed judgment, emphasized that while the Swapnil Tripathi case highlighted the importance of live streaming in promoting access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution, the implementation of such measures must be done gradually, keeping in mind the technical, logistical, and financial constraints involved.

Court's Reasoning

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s broad vision for improving judicial transparency through live streaming, as articulated in the Swapnil Tripathi case. The Swapnil Tripathi judgment led to the formulation of Model Rules for the live streaming and recording of court proceedings, which were circulated to all High Courts, including the Delhi High Court. These rules called for the establishment of infrastructure capable of supporting live streaming, archiving, and the controlled release of such recordings.

However, the High Court pointed out that the implementation of these rules required significant preparation, both in terms of technical infrastructure and financial resources. The court stressed that premature judicial intervention, such as imposing rigid timelines without regard to these challenges, could lead to ineffective implementation, which might compromise the quality and security of judicial proceedings.

Justice Datta’s bench noted that the Delhi High Court was actively working to address the logistical and infrastructural challenges inherent in expanding live streaming capabilities. The court observed that the phased approach to implementation was necessary to ensure that technical issues were properly resolved without undermining the integrity of court processes.

Privacy and Security Considerations

An important aspect of the ruling was the court's emphasis on privacy and security concerns. The Delhi High Court reinforced that the existing rules regarding access to recorded proceedings already addressed certain privacy safeguards. The court expressed concerns that indiscriminate access to live-streamed or recorded proceedings could lead to misuse or security risks, particularly where sensitive matters were involved.

Further, the court highlighted that access to recordings would only be granted as per established procedures, and any changes to these procedures must be carefully considered to ensure compliance with legal standards and the protection of judicial integrity.

Infrastructural Challenges and Resource Allocation

The petitioner’s argument regarding insufficient infrastructure was countered by the court’s acknowledgment of the resource allocation efforts made by the Government of India under the eCourts Project Phase-III. While the government had allocated ₹112.26 crores for the establishment of the Courtroom Live Audio-Visual Streaming System (CLASS), the court noted that full implementation of this system required time and a phased rollout. The Delhi High Court explained that such infrastructure development was a process involving technical teams and administrative oversight to ensure both functional and secure systems.

Judicial Oversight and Administrative Decisions

The judgment also underscored that judicial mechanisms were not the appropriate forum to influence administrative decisions relating to procedural adaptations in the courts. The court maintained that the implementation of live streaming should be overseen by technical committees, which were better equipped to address the challenges and complexities involved in adapting courtrooms to modern technological standards.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that while the court recognized the need for greater transparency and public access to judicial proceedings, the phased implementation of live streaming was the most practical and responsible course of action. The court highlighted that imposing rigid timelines without considering the underlying infrastructural and security concerns could jeopardize the quality and integrity of judicial processes. The judgment reinforces the principle that transparency in the judiciary must be balanced with operational feasibility, privacy considerations, and the protection of legal standards.

Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. Government of India (2025:DHC:2106)