The Delhi High Court recently rejected a writ petition to livestream court hearings after noting that the matter is already being examined on the administrative side by the Court [Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs Govt.Nct Of Delhi & Ors.].. Justice Sachin Datta observed that there are several challenges, both infrastructural and otherwise, that come with the livestreaming of court hearings. "The initiation / expansion of live streaming must be preceded by adequate preparation so as to ensure that the quality and security of judicial proceedings is not compromised. This is particularly in the light of recent concerns arising on account of misuse of live stream videos by content creators on social media. As such, it is imperative that necessary practical assessments are made and safeguards are introduced," the Court explained. .The judge noted that that these concerns were earlier noticed in the case of CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High Court, when it declined a similar plea to implement the live-streaming of court hearings. “As rightly observed in C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (supra), this Court, on the administrative side has been actively engaged in addressing the logistical and infrastructural challenges associated with the initiative to introduce / expand live streaming of Court proceedings. However, it has also been recognized that there are infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative,” Justice Datta observed in his March 28 order. The Court added that it would not be wise to impose rigid timelines in such matters without due regard to technical challenges and resource allocation.It proceeded to dismiss the petition. .The petitioner before the Court had submitted that the e-committee of the Supreme Court has already formulated Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings.The Delhi High Court later issued guidelines regarding the archival, access, and retention of recorded proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court's guidelines are not being implemented effectively..Justice Datta, however, declined to issue any directions on the same, adding that the technical committees of the High Court are already actively engaged in examining the issue. .The Court further stated that issuing the directions sought by the petitioner without ironing out the technical difficulties is not prudent. “Issuance of any omnibus directions (as sought by the petitioner), regardless of the technical issues and the safeguards that are required to be put in place, could have unintended consequences, potentially undermining the quality, confidentiality, and security of judicial processes,” the Court stated..Advocates Nikhil Srivastava and Muskan Sharma appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Harshita Nathrani, Samar Singh Kachwaha, Harshvardhan Thakur and Yash appeared for the respondents (Delhi government and others). .[Read judgment]
