Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking SOP For Access To Archival Court Recordings

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (January 19) issued notice on a petition seeking formulation of Guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure on grant or refusal of access to archival recordings of court proceedings. 

The plea has been moved by advocate Angad Kamath who had made an application in form III under the Karnataka Rules On Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings 2021 seeking archived records of certain proceedings, but was denied access.

Kamath submitted that Rule 8(3) prescribes that access to copies of the Recordings not uploaded will be sanctioned by the Designated Officer. However, the Rule is silent on the purposes for which access can be granted or denied. He submitted that exercise of power conferred upon the Designated Officer must be reasoned.

He also sought timelines for disposal of Form III and internal supervisory or review mechanism to ensure non-arbitrary, transparent and consistent exercise of discretion in compliance with Article 14 Constitution.

During the hearing, Justice BM Shyam Prasad orally asked Kamath why he needed the information. "What is your interest in the proceedings?" the court asked.

Kamath responded that he had appeared as counsel in the matter and requested access for "academic purpose, performance evaluation".

He submitted that that the designated authority had denied the record citing Rule 10(1)(ii) which states that "Archival Data shall not constitute the official record of the Court Proceedings unless otherwise directed by the Bench".

At this juncture, the Court asked Kamath how he will get over Rule 10(1)(ii). "If it was archival data then maybe it could be shared under 10(1)(ii)...unless otherwise directed by the bench. You must show some direction by the court to say that this will be archival data," the court said. 

Kamath responded that Rule 10 deals with usage whereas he had requested for access (under Rule 8), not usage. 

The court orally asked about the definition of access and use; to which Kamath submitted that there was no definition of access. Rule 8(3) states storage and access, some recording are uploaded on YouTube, so if you want any archival data then one needs to apply under Rule 8(3), Kamath said.

The jurisdiction for designated authority to grant access is under Rule 8(3) Kamath added. 

"When the designated authority falls into error, is conflating use and access. Once I have access, for what purpose I will put to use, that the court will decide," Kamath said. 

The court thereafter issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter on February 6. 

As the petitioner pressed for interim prayer for preservation of the court recording, the court said that the petitioner has the liberty to seek the interim relief on the next date of hearing. 

The petitioner has challenged December 30, 2025 order of Assistant Registrar (IT)/Designated Officer rejecting his plea under Form III seeking access to a particular court recording and seeks a direction for grant of access to petitioner to archival recordings sought by him under Form III application dated December 11, 2025. 

In the interim it seeks direction for preservation of the recording conducted on November 13, 2025 in connection with WP 32849/2025 including all meta data. 

Case title: ANGAD KAMATH v/s THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

 WP 773/2026