The Karnataka High Court has ruled that litigants cannot demand copies of archived audio-visual recordings of court proceedings as a matter of right unless the concerned bench specifically authorises their release.
Justice CM Poonacha delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by 72-year-old A Sathyanarayana Swamy, who challenged the rejection of his request to obtain recordings of proceedings connected with an appeal.
At the heart of the dispute was whether the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, entitled a litigant to access archived recordings even without a specific court order.
The Court concluded that they did not.
Archived recordings are not automatically part of the official record
Swamy had applied under Rule 8(3) of the 2021 Rules, seeking copies of recordings that were not available on the Court’s website or other digital platforms. The High Court administration rejected his request by invoking Rule 10(1)(ii).
That provision makes clear that archived data does not become part of the official record of court proceedings unless the bench directs otherwise.
Challenging the decision, Swamy approached the High Court seeking to set aside the rejection and secure access to the recordings. He argued that Rule 8(3) permitted applications for copies of recordings that had not been uploaded online.
He also contended that the administration’s decision violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
In addition to seeking the recordings, Swamy asked the Court to direct the authorities to formulate and publish clear guidelines or standard operating procedures governing applications made under Rule 8(3).
Court finds no enforceable right to obtain the recordings
Justice Poonacha examined Rules 8 and 10 together and held that the provisions did not create an independent right for litigants to obtain archived recordings without judicial permission.
The Court clarified that the mechanism for applying for recordings could not be interpreted as an automatic entitlement to receive them. Unless the bench specifically orders otherwise, archived material remains outside the official record of proceedings.
Since Swamy could not establish a right under the rules to obtain the requested recordings, the Court found no basis to interfere with the administration’s decision.
The High Court consequently dismissed his petition, reinforcing that access to archived recordings depends on a specific judicial direction rather than a litigant’s request alone.