MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
Advocate
101, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Rd, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001
Mob: +91 98205 35428/94471 65651
E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
13.5.2026
To,
The Central Project Coordinator,
High Court of Bombay
(Mr.Ganesh Deshmukh)
High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side,
Mumbai

Sir,
Ref: Your letter dated 28th March 2026 which was emailed to me on 6th May 2026 whereby you called upon me to take down the video recordings of the Bombay High Court which are uploaded on my YouTube channel within 7 days, failing which I may be subjected to urgent consequential orders.

1. The undersigned, in all humility, is a senior lawyer who has spent a lifetime in the legal profession, from 1979 as a litigant and from 1984 as a lawyer, and would beg to submit, has a better understanding and knowledge of the legal profession and the deficiencies thereof than most people. Bringing about accountability and transparency in judiciary to render it as a true instrument of dispensation of justice to the public at large, for whom the institution of judiciary exists, has been my mission.
2. The letter at your end has not been very courteous. However, I do not wish to follow your suit.
3. A citizen, like the sovereign, is free to do whatever is not expressly prohibited. But any other legal entity can do only whatever has been expressly permitted or authorised by law. It is therefore, incumbent on any authority, while exercising any function, judicial or administrative, to expressly state the source of its authority. From your letter, all that I can understand is that you are the Central Project Coordinator, e-Courts Project, of the of the Bombay High Court. In all humility, I fail understand under what authority you have addressed me as in the letter under reference above.
4. Except a court of record, every authority has to disclose its source of power. By virtue of that reason alone, I could have very well ignored your letter or simply pointed out that you have no authority to do so.
5. In all humility, I would submit that I have been one of the first persons to campaign for the video recording of court proceedings, livestreaming and preservation of such records. I had addressed the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court way back in 2010, the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister, Law Minister and various other constitutional authorities umpteen times thereafter on this subject. Thereafter I invoked the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. A division bench of the Bombay High Court in 2016 in a judgement running into 52 pages rejected my plea stating that video recording would turn the court into a circus.
6. In 2018, my petition along with that of others before the Supreme Court came to be allowed. The Supreme Court was pleased to take the view that video recording of court proceedings, livestreaming and access to such records is an integral part of the right to information, nay, the freedom of speech and expression, the most sacrosanct of constitutional guarantees. It is only heartening to know that even judges who opposed the idea of video recording later came to be proponents thereof.
7. The video recording of court proceedings is one of the core objectives of the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC) which has around 80,000 members.
8. We felt video recording of court proceedings, livestreaming, preservation and access to such records is the simplest and the most effective solution for the malaises which our justice delivery system has been facing since long. Though we inherited from the British a judiciary which was much respected for its impartiality and erudition, the introduction of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in due course of time caused irreparable damage to the confidence of the public to the justice delivery system. The reason being that Article 226 is a prerogative, discretionary jurisdiction which converted the jurisdiction to a face law jurisdiction.
9. The legal profession has been elitist. The writ jurisdiction primarily came to be the forte of the rich and elite class of lawyers and lawyers and litigants from humble backgrounds were often ill-treated, their cases dismissed without due consideration and often threatened with contempt of court.
10. There does not exist any meaningful mechanism for the ordinary lawyers and litigants to address their grievances about ill-treatment and denial of justice. If they were to do so, they are hauled up in contempt and made to apologize. The ordinary lawyers and litigants were helpless, felt terrorised. I realized that court proceedings are recorded everywhere in the world, livestreamed and such records and available to the litigant public. The concept of e-courts is an idea whose time has come, which no army can prevent. Our relentless Campaign for video recording and live streaming thus took birth.
11. Nothing in our lifetimes has changed the concept of access to justice than virtual hearing which the covid pandemic made an absolute necessity. Judges and lawyers across the breadth and width of this country have realized that video recording has made qualitative change. The cameras cannot lie. Judges who used to illtreat lawyers and litigants wantonly became more conscious and started conducting themselves in a far better manner. Even so, there are innumerable instances where judges can be seen to ill-treat lawyers/litigants in a manner which is inconceivable in modern democracy. The latest being an incident which took place in the Andra Pradesh High Court where a young lawyer was threatened to be sent to jail without any rhyme or reason.
12. There cannot be any dispute whatsoever at all about the need to livestream the proceedings of all courts and tribunals, preserve such records and provide access to such records to the lawyers and litigant public. I have heard many times judges ask “Why are the Police afraid of video recording?”. The same question equally applies to lawyers and judges. In a constitutional democracy, transparency is not a threat to the institution; rather, it is one of the strongest safeguards for preserving public faith in it.
13. What we follow is an open court system. Whatever happens from the seat of justice, every citizen, not merely lawyers and citizens, have a right to witness and access. Real time access is the need of the day. The proceedings of the Supreme Court are livestreamed. Any member of the public can access the Supreme Court hearing. Lawyers, litigants, the press, social media persons, et al. record and disseminate such records on their social media pages/channels. The Supreme Court has not taken any exception to that, for it has itself said that the proceedings in Courts and tribunals, since we follow an open court system, is open to the public, and the day that is denied, that is the end of the justice delivery system.
14. As can be seen, I have chosen to exercise the utmost restraint and cast no aspersions. However, it is not lost on me, nor would it be lost on any person reading your letter, that despite court proceedings, particularly those of constitutional courts, being routinely reported, disseminated, analysed and circulated by several established media platforms, digital legal media houses and numerous other entities, you have chosen to single me out and call upon me to take down the videos in question. Proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself are live-streamed and thereafter widely circulated across innumerable social media platforms, often reaching lakhs of viewers. Despite such widespread dissemination being commonplace, the fact that the videos apparently shared by me have alone caught your eye, also speaks volumes.
15. I am elaborating, not because I am under any duty or obligation to do so, for I consider you to have no jurisdiction. Yet, having ventured to reply to you, I must in all humility, point out that I cannot imagine of a more thoughtlessly drafted notice. You have said that “reports have also been reciveed that these video clips have been used for purposes other than bonafide”. Nobody is presumed to be bad. If you have reports which suggests that the videos are clips that have been used for purposes other than bonafide, you must have furnished to me those reports. To ask me to comment on those reports without furnishing a copy to me is against the principles of natural justice. You are under a duty to state in express words the materials and documents based on which you have come to the prima facie conclusion that I have not acted bonafide. Then alone i will be in a position to contradict it.
16. I have acted bonafide. And I am at a loss to understand how, at all, unaltered videos of court proceedings can be lacking in bonafides.
17. As aforesaid, I am free to do whatever is not expressly prohibited by law. The rules framed by the Bombay High Court are not in the realm of substantive law. My rights can be taken away, or a restriction can be imposed only by a law enacted by the Parliament. No sooner than I came to know of the said Rules, I invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 for a declaration that the said rules are unconstitutional. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 37595 OF 2025 so instituted must have been mentioned at least half a dozen times for urgent hearing. I will be mentioning the said Writ Petition before the vacation Court for urgent hearing in the light of your letter under reference above. It is difficult to conceive that you had issued this notice being aware of the pendency of the said Writ Petition. I intend to meet you today to furnish you a copy of the said Writ Petition and discuss the matter.
18. Lex iniusta non est lex” – an unjust law is no law. There is a duty of disobedience. Legendary Justice KK Mathew of the Supreme Court, in his book ‘Three Lectures’, so too, Justice Krishna Iyer in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs State of Gujarat, implore emphatically of the right to rebellion, nay, the duty to defy and oppose unjust law. Even Jesus Christ violated the Sabbath, a blasphemy, in order to do good. ‘Good men must not obey laws too well’ said Emerson. In all humility, I must say that in campaigning for video recording of court proceedings and access to such records, relentlessly for almost two decades in the face of great amount of opposition, threat of contempt, I have served a public cause. Those who opposed me yesterday have joined hands with me for reforms.
19. Your letter, assuming it was written with the best of intentions, without malafides, in good faith, appears to be the result of a misunderstanding. Instead of sending me the same, you ought to have invited me for a discussion which would have been far more pleasant, and perhaps fruitful.
20. I believe we have one thing in mind, and that is how to serve the common man better, how to make our courts and tribunals true temples of justice.

I remain in the faith that you recognise me to be a friend of the institution, someone who has spent a lifetime for legal reforms.

Yours Sincerely,

Mathews J Nedumpara.