Karnataka High Court Closes Lawyer's Plea For Access To Archived Court Recordings, Issue Of Jurisdiction To Grant Sanction Kept Open

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [July 28] permitted a lawyer to withdraw his petition seeking access to archived recordings of court proceedings, while keeping the question of law–on who has jurisdiction to sanction access to archives footage–open for consideration in an appropriate case.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj accepted the memo filed by the petitioner Advocate Angad Kamath seeking permission to withdraw the petition and disposed of the matter as withdrawn, with the clarification that 'the question of law averred is kept open'.

The Bench observed that the petitioner had voluntarily chosen to withdraw the petition and that the Court was not expressing any other view.

“…memo filed seeking permission to withdraw the petition. Accepting such memo, no petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The question of law averred is kept open…”, the court dictated in its order. 

Kamath, who had sought access to archival recordings of court proceedings for 'academic interest' and 'performance evaluation', had challenged the rejection of Kamath's application under Form III of the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021. The rejection order was made under Rule 10 (1)(ii) and 10(2)(iv)of the Rules by the Assistant Registrar.

When the matter was called, Kamath, appearing in person, submitted that the petition was not 'adversarial' in nature. He clarified that he did not wish to be the cause for burdening the High Court with the cost of maintaining archives, especially since the impugned order did not decide the matter on merits.

“…I am saying it is not adversarial. At the end of the day, archives would still have to be maintained…the impugned order does not say on merits you aren't entitled to it. The impugned order only says you have to go before the court which heard the matter…”, Kamath submitted.

He further clarified that he was not seeking 'use' of the recordings but 'access' to the same. However, when the court observed that he must first decide whether to withdraw or argue, Kamath opted to withdraw.

“...I will withdraw it. I don't want to be the cause for burdening the High Court in that sense”, Kamath submitted.

“…The question [as to whether jurisdiction to sanction access to archives is with the Registrar IT or with concerned Court, and the vires of Rule 8 since Rule 8(3) does not lay down any guidelines] …the question of law must be kept open”, the counsel urged the court.

The petitioner had sought a direction for grant of access to archival recordings sought by Kamath under his Form III application dated December 11, 2025. He had also sought an interim direction for preservation of the recording conducted on November 13, 2025, in connection with WP 32849/2025, where the lawyer-petitioner had appeared.

The plea had also sought formulation of Guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure on grant or refusal of access to archival recordings of court proceedings.

Case Title: Angad Kamath v. The High Court of Karnataka & Ors. 

Case No: WP 773/2026