No video-recording of court proceedings: Supreme Court

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-video-recording-of-

court-proceedings-Supreme-Court/articleshow/45771221.cms

No video-recording of court proceedings:

Supreme Court

TNN | Jan 6, 2015, 06.45 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Like the US Supreme Court, the Indian Supreme Court

on Monday remained firm on keeping the courts a "no go zone' for

video cameras.

In February last year, a shaky two-minute video footage of the US

supreme court proceedings had gone viral evoking sharp comments

from critics. An advertisement put out by the 'Coalition for Court

Transparency' read - "The Supreme Court's decisions impact the

lives of Americans everywhere, but only a privileged few get to

witness history and see justice in action."

On Monday, Chief Justice HL Dattu-headed 3-judge bench thought

for a while when a petitioner argued for video-recording of court

proceedings. But it came out with an answer that stumped even the

petitioner, who was left speechless.

The bench said: "You want to put CCTV in the court? Right now

what ever we discuss in the innermost chamber is out there in the

public. What we discuss among judges in the Collegium meetings

are also out in public. There is no need for CCTV."

Immediately start video-recording of all High Court proceedings, and providing of verbatim transcripts of what is argued in Court, just like in any other civilized, progressive coun

Immediately start video-recording of all High Court

proceedings, and providing of verbatim transcripts of what is

argued in Court, just like in any other civilized, progressive

coun

Deepak Khosla New Delhi, India

VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the

government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Said Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of

Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States

(1801–1809).

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the

government fears the people, there is liberty. But when the people

distrust their own Courts, sown are the seeds of corruption, leading

to anarchy and rebellion.”

Said Deepak Khosla, a mere advocate.

High Courts in India are wont to pound their chests and point out

the existence of Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, which says

that all High Courts are "Courts of Record". And they cite this article

to then draw mystical powers in the nature of "inherent powers"

which allegedly exist in all “Courts of Record”. And then proceed to

harshly intimidate persons with such inherent powers allegedly

extant in “Courts of Record”, such as those of contempt, powers

which – according to them – even transcend the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971.

Yet, there is no "record" of what is argued in Indian "Courts of

Record".

A conundrum ? Or a deliberate preservation of a "power play" ?

Based on a denial of accountability, perhaps ?

As a gesture of appeasement, the higher Judiciary in India (read,

High Courts and the Supreme Court of India) offer to allow

recording of their lower court's proceedings. See this :

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-for-judiciary-s-

view-on-recording-of-court-proceedings/article1-1148544.aspx.

But why not their own Courts ?

The political class go along with this sop in the form of a quid-pro-

quo ; meaning, don't harass us with adverse judgements that strike

down our power-perpetuation and/or corrupt acts, or we will use the

legislative process and push video cameras into your courts to make

you accountable to the people as well.

The end sufferer of this perennial power-dance ? You and me.

The very legislative body that frames and passes law in India (i.e.

the Lok Sabha, which is the 'House of the People') have been

televising their own Parliamentary proceedings for almost a decade

now. In other words, the body that has framed the Contempt of

Courts Act for the Courts does not deem it contemptuous if its own

proceedings are known to the public, and they are held accountable

for their conduct.  The Supreme Court of UK, since inception in

London in 2011, has started televising its court proceedings. The

High Courts of UK also have followed suit as of October 30th, 2013

this year. See this link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24744684.

So why are High Court judges in India reluctant to allow the camera

into their court-rooms, especially when this would provide

incontrovertible-evidence of what goes on inside ? What are they

shying away from ? Accountability ?

Country after country has found that entry of the video camera into

the courtroom renders transparency into what is most certainly an

opaque process even in the eyes of the direct participants i.e. the

lawyers/litigants who are party to any particular case.

Even Nigeria, Zambia and Sierra Leone have started recording of

their court's proceedings. But not India….the Wise man of the East.

India is home to almost 20% of the world's population, whose fate

is, in effect, governed by around 850 High Court Judges. And it is a

democracy, not an autocracy, much less a monarchy. If this be so,

will the 850 persons who hold others (over a billion) accountable to

the law not agree to allow themselves to be held accountable to the

same laws ?

Come....change this....for your sake....for your children's

sakes...and for the sake of the children of the same Judges who

resist entry of the camera in their courts while they hold the post,

but who would, themselves, be the first person to demand entry of

the camera into the court, but after their tenure is over.

Govt for judiciary’s view on recording of court proceedings

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/govt-for-judiciary-s-view-on-

recording-of-court-proceedings/story-

uw22d8Fx1npje1U2x2UkCM.html

Govt for judiciary’s view on recording of court proceedings

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times, New Delhi |  Updated: Nov 08,

2013 01:04 IST

The government will seek the higher judiciary’s views on audio and

video recording of proceedings in lower courts and proposes a legal

backing for the move by making changes in existing laws.

This was among the proposals discussed at Thursday’s meeting of

the advisory council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and

Legal Reforms, chaired by Union law minister Kapil Sibal.

Majority of the participants favoured the proposal for audio and

video recording of proceedings in courts. It was pointed out that the

experiment has worked well in countries across Europe.

“The proposal requires active support of the judiciary since it is the

high courts which will be responsible for implementation in the

subordinate courts within their respective states,” said an expert

who participated in the meeting.

Among others, former Delhi high court chief justice AP Shah,

national innovation council chief Sam Pitroda, Planning Commission

deputy chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia and chairman of the

parliamentary standing committee on law and justice, Shantaram

Naik attended the meeting.

How feasible is the idea of live recording of court proceedings

(1)

[ LIVE MINT] 26 September 2015

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/f2eFxi1Z0SmWsD6o42qq9O/How-

feasible-is-the-idea-of-live-recording-court-proceedings.html

How feasible is the idea of live recording of court

proceedings

This is a question being widely debated after the Calcutta high court

allowed it

Shreeja Sen

The Calcutta high court court order was forward thinking in many

ways. But it comes with a disclaimer that video recording would not

be part of the official record of the case, as there are no court rules

to that effect. Photo: Indranil Bhoumik/Mint

NEW DELHI: Will video or audio recording of court proceedings bring

greater transparency in judicial process? This is a question being

widely debated after the Calcutta high court allowed it.

On 19 July, The Indian Express reported that the “Calcutta high

court, in a first, has recorded court room proceedings, setting a

precedent in the country where even the top court has been

reluctant to permit cameras and microphones inside court halls”.

The court order was forward thinking in many ways. But it comes

with a disclaimer that video recording would not be part of the

official record of the case, as there are no court rules to that effect.

The judge had categorically said that since the concerned parties in

the case agreed to video recording, the same was allowed.

“In terms of precedent, it holds no value. The court is quite

categorical as it says the recording will not be part of official

records,” said Rahul Singh, assistant professor at the Bengaluru-

based National Law School of India University.

So what is stopping courts from adopting such methods? A major

factor is cost, said Alok Prasanna of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a

New Delhi-based think tank. “If I had to pick one factor, I think it is

simply cost. Proper video recording, professional transcription,

storage, broadcast et al are fairly expensive and may not be most

cost effective use of resources even for a high court,” he said.

Singh of NLSIU also pointed to the flip side of such a move. “There

might be a lot of playing to the galleries. Audio recording is allowed

in the US. But they have a limited time to make their arguments.

The problem in India is that a lot of stuff happens in court. Quality

of arguments isn’t very good. In fact, more than judges, lawyers are

uncomfortable with arguments being recorded,” he said.

Shreeja Sen

Video recording of the court proceeding, permitted in ANGELO BROTHERS LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS. HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA.

ORDER SHEET SHEET NO.1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Original Jurisdiction
CA No.401 of 2013
CA No.342 of 1998
CA No.431 of 2012
CP No.90 of 1983
 IN THE MATTER OF:-
 ANGELO BROTHERS LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:-
NAWDEEP SINGH
Versus
 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT,
 CALCUTTA.

 CA No.119 of 2015
 CP No.90 of 1983
IN THE MATTER OF:-
 ANGELO BROS LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS.
 AND
 ANGELO BROTHERS LTD.

 CA No.136 of 2015
 CP No.90 of 1983
IN THE MATTER OF:-
 ANGELO BROS LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS.
 VS
 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT,
 CALCUTTA.

 CA No.232 of 2015
 CP No.90 of 1983
 CA No.136 of 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:-
 ANGELO BROS LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS.
 AND
 ANGELO BROTHERS LTD.

 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Date : 15th July, 2015.
2

 Appearance:-
 Mr.N.S. Hoon appears.
 Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate appears.
 Mr.Mihir Kundu, Advocate.
 ..for P.F. authority
 Mr.Nirmalya Dasgupta, Advocate.
 Mr.R.L. Mitra, Advocate.
 … for K.N. Fatehpuria.

 Mr. Rajiv Lall, Advocate.
 Mr.S.C.Prasad, Advocate.
 ..for the Official Liquidator.
 Mr. P.K. Jhunjunwalla, Adv. appears
 Mr. B.N. Josh, Adv.
 … for Jessop & CO.
 Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv. appears
 Re: CA No.119 of 2015
 CA No.431 of 2012
 CA No.578 of 2012

 The Court:-In course of hearing today, on behalf of the Official
Liquidator, objection was raised on appearance of on Mr. Khosla. It was
submitted that without being instructed by any Advocate-on-record, he
does not have right of audience before this Court as he himself is not
enrolled with Registrar, Original Side of this Court as an Advocate-onrecord
to act in the Original Side of this Court. In fact, the Rule which
prohibits acting in the Court by an Advocate who does not fulfil certain
stipulations, is under challenge before this Court in which Mr. Khosla
himself is the petitioner.
 In view of such objection, Mr. Khosla, in course of hearing, has
given an undertaking that an Advocate having authority to act as an
Advocate-on-record would file Vakalatnama on behalf of his clients by
3
16th July, 2015. In view of this undertaking given before this Court, in
course of hearing, I am permitting Mr. Khosla to address this Court.
RE: TA No.6 of 2015
CA No.119 of 2015
 The Judge’s summons taken out in this matter is accompanied by a
defect note jointly issued by the Superintendent and Section Officer of
the Central Filing Section of this Court. The Judge’s Summons was taken
out on 13th February, 2015 as it appears from this note, although the
same appears to have been stamped on 10th February, 2015. The defect
note is on the following points:-
“1. Presentation form has not been signed by the
petitioner/applicant.
2. Jurisdiction is not correct.
3. Judge’s summons has not been properly taken out and not
signed by the appropriate authority.
4. Judge’s summons is not served upon any one.”
 In respect of the presentation page of the affidavit taken out in
support of the Judge’s Summons, I give leave to Mr. Hoon, who is
present in Court today, to put his signature here and now. As regards
the note on jurisdiction, Mr. Hoon, upon obtaining leave of this Court in
course of hearing today has made correction in the first page of the
Judge’s Summons. Mr. Hoon has also signed the Summons. As regards
the signature of the Registrar of the Judge’s Summons, the Court
4
Assistant is directed to have the signature of such authority effected on
the Judge’s Summons in course of the day.
 Learned Advocate for the Official Liquidator, who is the main
respondent in this matter has appeared before this Court today. Let a
copy of the Judge’s Summons along with supporting affidavit be handed
over to the learned Advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator.
 In view of this direction, this Judge’s Summons shall be treated to
have been formally taken out as on date.
Re:-CA No.136 of 2015.
 The Advocate-on-Record in this application is Mr. Raj Kumar
Gupta, Advocate. It is submitted by Mr. Khosla he is no more
representing the applicant. There appear to be certain defects in the
Judge’s Summons taken out in connection with the application, which
Mr. Khosla undertakes to rectify after rising of the Court today.
 Such Summons, however, is not signed by the Registrar. Let the
Summons be treated to have been lodged as on date and copies of the
same be served upon the respondents or their learned Advocates for the
parties, specified in the Judge’s Summons.
In CA No.136 of 2015, Mr. Khosla has prayed for video recording of
the proceedings. Such prayer is not opposed by the learned Advocates
appearing for the two Directors of Sahu Jain Limited namely, Mr. Samir
Jain and Mr. Vineet Jain. The learned Advocate for the Official Liquidator
5
also does not oppose such prayer. Learned Advocate has appeared on
behalf of Mr. Pawan Ruia. But he submits that the Vakalatnama of
Pawan Ruia might not have been filed till date. He wants to ascertain the
factual position and undertakes, in the event such Vakalatnama has not
been filed, to file such Vakalatnama. In such circumstances, his
presence on behalf of Mr. Pawan Ruia is noted. No one, however, has
appeared on behalf of Mr. Haridas Mundra. Learned Advocate is also
present on behalf of Kedar Nath Fatehpuria. None of the other appearing
Advocates has opposed the prayer for video recording of the proceeding.
Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Directors of Sahu
Jain Limited, Mr. Pawan Ruia as also Mr. Fatehpuria have highlighted
the procedural defects in taking out the Judge’s Summons. It was
submitted that the Judge’s Summons, taken out by the applicant, has
not been sealed by the Registrar. But considering the fact that the
Judge’s Summons was filed on 27th February, 2015, I am giving leave to
the applicant to move this application having the Judge’s Summons
sealed in course of the day. The Judge’s Summons shall be treated to
have been taken out as on date. Objection is also taken on behalf of
Kedar Nath Fatehpuria as regards the manner in which the instant
application has been taken out. According to the learned Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Fatehpuria, the instant application ought not to have been
numbered by the department. But having regard to the leave given by
6
this Court for curing the procedural formalities, I direct this application
to be taken on record.
As regards prayer of Mr. Khosla for video recording of the
proceeding, I have permitted such recording as there was no objection
from the learned Advocates appearing for the different parties. But I
make it clear that the proceedings being recorded today shall not form
part of the official records of this Court as there is no Rule of the Court
as yet framed permitting video recording of the proceedings before the
Court. The recordings would be for the purpose of assistance of this
Court, like noting of submissions of the parties in course of hearing and
such recording shall not be made available to any of the parties or
outsiders unless otherwise directed by this Court, and this Court shall
have the power and authority to make necessary editing of the recorded
version, removing any part therefrom which this Court considers it
necessary to avoid any scandalous or undesirable or irrelevant matter to
remain on record.

 (ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.)
nm/sg2
A.R.(C.R.)

The WP by Adv A.C.PHILIP, Vice president of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms instituted in the Honble HC of Delhi seeking a declaration that the video Recording of the proceedings of the Courts and Tribunals

🌹😊My esteemed brothers and sisters,
The WP by our colleague Adv A.C.PHILIP, Vice president of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms instituted in the Honble HC of Delhi seeking a declaration that the video Recording of the proceedings of the Courts and Tribunals  is an essential component of the Right to Information in so far as neither the costs involved nor  any other other rational  considerations stand in its way was not got listed  today because of my non availability  in Delhi,though, i had even booked my ticket to Delhi in advance. A case where am the counsel which was before the Goa Bench of the Bombay HC yesterday  was adjourned for today for further hearing. Since, am engaged in Bombay HC tomorrow in certain matters of great urgency, I am sorry,  I am unable to be in Delhi tomorrow as well. The earliest possible date on which I could make myself to be available in Delhi is Thursday ie 1st of October . However, all Thursdays in Delhi HC are reserved for hearing the cases of the senior citizens,am told. My clerk, Prasad,who is a greater  Campaigner  for Transparency in Judiciary than even me,  is too keen to get our case listed at the earliest subject to my convenience. On 5th ,Monday, am in P&H HC. I hope I could make myself available in Delhi on 6th,Tuesday.
We are absolutely certain that the case will be dismissed offering some lame excuses.But,the judges will find it increasingly embarrassing;nay, will find it extremely difficult to reject the plea of the 125 crores of 'little Indians' when  we,nay,they are persistent in their  demand for greater  Transparency and Accountability. The Video Recording of the Court Proceedings is a war we are certain to win.Let us bravely embrace the initial hurdles and ridicule. Jai  Hind.  🌹😊.Satyameva Jayate.🌹😊
Mathews J Nedumpara, President, The National lawyers campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, Mumbai.

VIDEO RECORDING OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS

🌹👆Dear All,
Let us assume that a  political leader of national stature  is suffering from HIV. But we have no right to discuss about it at all in the public domain, nay, ridicule him unless  the discourse thereof  is in the  advancement  public interest. Therefore, we must remember that even the fact  that we discuss here  is  truth,absolute truth in itself,  will not afford us a right to discuss in public things about others which are not commendable.
👆🌹🌹🌹👇👇👇👇 Further, the objective of our (NLC's) Campaign is to secure greater  Transparency and Accountability in Higher judiciary of which introduction of the  Video recording of the proceedings of all courts and Tribunals in this country and,  in particular, of the SC and HCs  is the priority .We need to be  united and focused on the said noble cause alone;nothing else at least for the time being. 👆👆🌹🌹🌹👇👇🌹THERE IS ONLY ONE AGENDA FOR THE TIME BEING.👇🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹👇👇👇👇🌹
VIDEO RECORDING OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS 👆😄🌹🌠🌹✌🌠🌟🌠
  Let us not be swayed by the distractions around ;let us not waste our time and energies in bashing  individual errant  judges who might have inflicted grave injustice on the hapless citizens or was corrupt . 🌹.🌹🌹👇
My earnest request to all in this Whatsapp Group is to create a Whatsapp Group of 100  members. 🌹🌹🌹🌹👇👇👇👇👇👇🌠👇As of now there are 40 Campaign  groups of which am member. That means this Whatsapp Campaign Groups has roughly 4000 members or little less. 🌹🌹🌹🌹🌠🌠👆👆🌟✌🌹🌹👆👇👇👇👇🌠🌠🌠👇👇If everyone of you  in this Group create a separate  Whatsapp Group and be the administrator  thereof; then, there will be 99 Whatsapp Campaign  Groups as an off shoot of this Group alone seeking greater  Transparency in Judiciary. 99×100=9900.That means  we will then have 9900 members. If all of them in their turn create a separate  Whatsapp Campaign Group of their own ;then,there could be:9900 × 100=990000 members. 🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹👇👇🌠🌠👇🌠🌠And if each of the members  of the said  Groups on their turn create and administer a group; then,that will lead to astronomical membership.🌹🌹👆👇 To put it pithily, there is enormous room for these  Whatsapp Groups on Judicial Transparency to turn itself into a national movement.👆🌹🌠🌠🌹👆👇👇 The effort required is minimal. There are already 40 Whatsapp Groups many of which are quite active as well campaigning for greater transparency in higher Judiciary or to put it still simple, demanding Video Recording of the proceedings of all the courts and Tribunals in this country and, in particular, of the SC and  HCs of this country. 🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹👇👇👇
Mathews J Nedumpara, President The National lawyers campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms , Mumbai.