Mandamus for Live Streaming and Recording Court Proceedings: Balancing Judicial Transparency with Administrative Viability

Introduction

In Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, W.P.(C) 2888/2025, decided on 28 March 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to enforce Supreme Court and Delhi High Court directions on live streaming and video‐recording of judicial proceedings. The petitioner, Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, contended that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India and subsequent Model Rules, as well as detailed notifications issued by this Court, no comprehensive infrastructure for live streaming and archiving had been put in place. Respondents included the Government of NCT of Delhi (R1, R2) and the Delhi High Court administration (R3), represented by their counsel.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the petition. It recognized the importance of transparency and access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution but held that:

Implementation of live streaming requires complex logistical and technical preparations best handled by the Court’s designated committees.
Judicial intervention to impose rigid timelines or omnibus directions on administrative processes was premature and inappropriate.
Recording of hearings under the Video Conferencing Rules, 2021 (Rule 3(vi)) is specifically barred unless a prior application is made; hybrid/VC hearings therefore cannot be recorded in Court No. 42.
Providing copies of recordings and adjusting recording procedures are administrative and technical matters to be managed by the Court’s IT and administrative teams.

In view of the ongoing phased implementation and existing safeguards under active consideration by technical committees, the petitioner’s prayers for a writ of mandamus were refused.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (AIR 2018 SC 4806) – Held that “access to justice” under Article 21 encompasses public witnessing of proceedings, particularly in matters of public interest. This decision led to Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, emphasizing infrastructure development for live streams and archives.
Delhi High Court Notification No. 02/RULES/DHC (13.01.2023), corrected by Corrigendum No. 180/RULES/DHC (03.11.2023) – Laid down archival, access and retention protocols for recorded hearings, mandating Rule 7 compliance on storage and disclosure.
C.A. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 3926/2024) – Earlier writ petition in which this Court analyzed the technical, logistical and security challenges of expanding live streaming, concluding that direction as to timelines or operational methodology was best left to administrative bodies rather than judicial fiat.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centered on the separation between judicial pronouncements of principle and administrative execution of policy:

Administrative Domain: The e‑Committee, IT and technical committees of the High Court are entrusted with developing and implementing streaming infrastructure. Judicial micromanagement of these processes was regarded as inappropriate.
Technical Viability and Security: The Court emphasized potential risks—poor quality streams, security breaches, misuse on social media, and confidentiality lapses—if live streaming were rolled out precipitously.
Rule 3(vi) of Video Conferencing Rules, 2021: Specifically prohibits video‐recording of hybrid or video‐conferenced hearings unless a prior application is made. The petitioner’s request to record Division Bench proceedings in Court No. 42 was therefore contrary to existing rules.
Mandamus Relief: A writ of mandamus compels performance of a public duty. Here, the Court found no failure of duty by the respondents; rather, there was active engagement in phased rollout. Hence, the threshold for mandamus was not met.

Impact

This judgment clarifies key points for future litigation and court administration:

Judicial transparency initiatives must respect administrative autonomy and technical constraints.
Mandamus will not supplant internal committee processes or force rigid timelines on logistical projects.
Rule‑based limitations on recording (e.g., Rule 3(vi)) remain binding unless formally amended.
Future petitions must demonstrate administrative inaction or clear duty breach to succeed on mandamus grounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 21 (“Right to Life and Personal Liberty”): Includes the concept of fair and transparent judicial processes; live streaming is seen as an extension of this right.
Writ of Mandamus: A judicial order compelling a public authority to perform a statutory duty. It will only issue where the duty is clear, mandatory and unperformed.
Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording: Guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court’s e‑Committee to ensure transparent proceedings, requiring courts to set up audio‑visual systems and archival mechanisms.
Hybrid/Video Conferencing Hearings: Proceedings conducted partly in‑courtroom and partly via video link. Under Rule 3(vi) of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2021, such hearings cannot be recorded unless a party files an application in advance.
RTI (Right to Information) Application: A method to request government-held information, used here to establish that no archive of recorded hearings existed beyond Court No. 1.

Conclusion

Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others reinforces the principle that while judicial transparency is vital, the modalities of implementing live streaming and recording rest with specialized administrative and technical bodies of the court. The High Court declined to grant a mandamus invoking logistical, security, and procedural considerations, and reaffirmed that internal committees must develop capacity and safeguards in a phased, secure, and quality‑controlled manner. This decision will shape future challenges to the implementation of audio‑visual court infrastructure, underlining the need to balance access to justice with technical viability and administrative discretion.