No Right To Obtain Archived Court Hearing Recordings Without Court's Permission: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition seeking access to the archived audio-visual recordings of court proceedings, holding that litigants do not have an absolute right to copies of recordings unless specifically ordered by a Court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428]

The single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha, referring to Rule 8 (Storage and Access) and Rule 10 (Disclaimers, Prohibitions and Restrictions) of Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, held as below:

“…It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court. In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise…', the Court observed.

Hence, the Court, referring to Rule 10(2), noted that it strictly prohibits the recording, sharing, or dissemination of live-streamed proceedings or archival data by any person or entity other than an authorized one. The single judge bench also pointed out to the rules which explicitly state that the Court shall have exclusive copyright in the recordings and archival data.

For context, the 72-year-old petitioner had filed an application in Form III, under the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, seeking copies of the audio-visual recordings of proceedings pertaining to a writ appeal.

Pursuant to this, the Assistant Registrar (Information Technology) of the High Court rejected the application vide communication dated July 23, 2026. The rejection was purportedly based on Rule 10(1)(ii) of the Rules, which states that archival data shall not constitute the official record of court proceedings unless otherwise directed by the Bench.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court to quash the endorsement. The petitioner also sought to direct the Registry to grant access to the said recordings. In a connected prayer, the plea also sought directions to frame clear guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the exercise of power under Rule 8(3) of the Rules.

The petitioner's counsel, referring to Sub-rule (3), attempted to assert that access to copies of recordings not uploaded on the court's website should be sanctioned by the Designated Officer. Since an application was made in the prescribed Form III as contemplated under Rule 8(3), the rejection of the same by the Registry was erroneous, and that the requested recordings ought to have been granted, it was contended.

The Registry, in its communication, had relied on Rule 10(1)(ii) of the Rules, which stipulates that archival data does not automatically become the official record unless the Bench expressly directs it. The Registry stated that unless the archival recordings become the 'official record' upon judicial direction, the same cannot be made available for access and use.

Agreeing with the Registry's decision, the Court upheld the rejection of the Form III application, iterating that the archival data does not constitute the official record of the court unless the Bench specifically directs it.