The Karnataka High Court has taken a significant step by issuing a notice in response to a petition that demands clear guidelines for accessing archived court recordings. This move addresses growing concerns about transparency in the judicial process.
Advocate Challenges Ambiguity in Court Recording Rules
Advocate Angad Kamath filed the petition before the Karnataka High Court. He highlighted serious ambiguity in the existing rules that govern access to archival court recordings. The petition specifically seeks directions to frame and publish clear guidelines for granting or refusing access to these recordings.
Court Issues Notice and Sets Hearing Date
Justice B M Shyam Prasad issued the notice to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court. The court has scheduled the matter for a hearing on February 6. This development follows Kamath's application under Rule 8(3) of the relevant regulations.
Kamath's plea stems from a specific incident. A hearing took place in court hall No. 15 on November 13, 2025. This hearing was digitally recorded as part of the live-streaming framework. However, it was never uploaded to the official platform, which is the Karnataka High Court's YouTube channel.
Background of the Live-Streaming Rules
The Karnataka High Court Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules, 2021 came into force on January 1, 2022. These rules apply to the high court itself and to all courts and tribunals under its supervisory jurisdiction. The primary goal of these rules is to enhance transparency, promote inclusivity, and foster better access to justice for all citizens.
Rejection of Access Application and Legal Arguments
When Kamath applied for access to the archival recording of the November 2025 hearing, the Assistant Registrar (IT) rejected his request. The rejection cited that archival recordings do not constitute an official record of proceedings under Rule 10(1)(ii). Furthermore, the Assistant Registrar stated that recordings for academic purposes can only be permitted by the court under Rule 10(2)(iv), not by a designated officer.
Kamath strongly contested this decision in his petition. He argued that Rule 8(3) explicitly grants the power to sanction access to non-uploaded recordings to a designated officer. This rule requires an application for such access. Kamath emphasized that Rule 8(3) is the sole provision dealing with access to these recordings.
In contrast, Rule 10(2)(iv) regulates the use of authorized recordings after access is granted. Kamath claimed that the Assistant Registrar's letter mistakenly treats a provision about the use of recordings as a barrier to access itself. By insisting that only the court can permit recordings for academic purposes, the endorsement creates unnecessary hurdles.
Potential Consequences of the Current Interpretation
Kamath warned that if the current interpretation stands, it would render Rule 8(3) meaningless. Litigants and advocates would face repeated obstacles. They would need to approach the court frequently for access to archival recordings. This situation would directly contradict the purpose of the live-streaming rules, which aim to simplify and democratize access to court proceedings.
The petition requests the court to quash the impugned endorsement. It also seeks access to the specific archival recording Kamath requested. Most importantly, it urges the framing of clear, published guidelines to prevent future confusion and ensure consistent application of the rules.
This case underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing technological advancements with legal procedural requirements. As courts increasingly adopt digital tools, clear guidelines become essential to maintain transparency and fairness in the justice system.
