Videos Of Court Proceedings Must Be Removed From YouTube After A Specific Time: Gujarat HC Opines, Says Discretion With Chief Justice

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (February 5) opined that videos of the Court proceedings which are live streamed are required to be removed from YouTube after a specific period. A division bench Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi in its order however said that the discretion in this regard is with the Chief Justice. It said:"...we are of the opinion that the videos of the Court proceedings are required to be removed from the YouTube after a specific period, however, we leave it on the discretion of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Registry is directed to apprise Hon'ble the Chief Justice in this regard". The court made the observations while rejecting a contempt plea moved by Gujarat Operational Creditors Association seeking action against Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India and others as well as their advocates, terming the application "disingenuous" and an "epitome of frivolity". The court and had also expressed displeasure with the applicant and its counsel Deepak Khosla for moving the plea and for making "unwarranted remarks" on the judges of the court. The plea alleged contempt on the part of the respondents and its advocates for seeking extension of an ad interim stay in the matter. The bench in its order also "condemned" the use and reliance of the transcripts of the live video streaming of the matter by the applicant–which it said was of 259 pages–and referred to Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021 to observe that the same was not permitted. It observed the Rule 5(e), (f) and (g) of the Rules, do not permit the same as part of Court record nor allow the live streamed videos of the court proceedings as evidence of anything and will also not be considered admissible. Rule 5(i) of the Rules mandates that 'no content of the live streamed feed/videos or any observations made therein, will be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings.The court noted that in order to substantiate the allegations against the "Judges of the high court and against the advocates", the applicant had produced the transcripts "running into more than 250 pages". The court thus referred to Rule 5a and said that it clarified that the live streaming of the Court proceedings is being done with an educative and beneficial cause, will not be sought for as of right by any of the stakeholders. It further observed that Rule 5(d) declares that the High Court shall hold copyright over live streamed feed and videos, prohibiting any unauthorised copying of the live feed / videos. It also cautions that "unauthorised use/re-use, capture, editing/ reediting, distribution/ redistribution, or creating derivative works or compiling the live streamed feed/ videos or using the same for any commercial purpose, in any form, will not be permitted". In view of the Rule the bench observed, "Thus, the Rules prohibits any content of the live streamed videos to be used as authorized/certified/official version of “anything” relating to the Court proceedings. It is contended by the learned advocate that the production of transcripts of the court proceedings cannot violate any of the rules, and the same can be placed reliance by the parties. However, we do not subscribe to the said submission...The Rules prohibit “content” and “observation made in the videos”. The transcripts are derivative from the videos of court proceedings, and they will fall within the ambit of “contents” and “observation". Thus, the use of transcription of live streaming court proceedings cannot be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings and the same cannot be allowed to be treated as evidence of anything relating to the Court proceedings and will also be inadmissible, and violation of the mandate of Rules will invite proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, formulation of the transcripts by the applicant from the live streamed videos runs contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, and hence, reliance placed on the unauthorized transcripts by learned advocate Mr.Khosla needs to be deprecated and highly condemned, which we do".Thus while dismissing the plea the court also imposed a cost of Rs 2 Lakh on the applicant to be paid in two weeks. An interim order was passed by the Single Judge on August 8, 2024 in a writ petition which had been moved by Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India (respondent), which stayed a June 6, 2024 communication till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and was further listed for hearing on September 2, 2024. In the meantime, the applicant has filed Civil Application for Vacation of Stay before the returnable date under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. It was the applicant's case that the aforesaid interim relief got vacated after completion of 15 days, as per the settled legal proposition of law, particularly decision of...

Videos Of Court Proceedings Must Be Removed From YouTube After A Specific Time: Gujarat HC Opines, Says Discretion With Chief Justice

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags