Mathews J Nedumpara
14.09.2026
98205 35428.

To
The Registrar,
High Court of Kerala.

Sir,
Subject: Application for Ex-Post Facto Permission for Video Recording, Posting, and Dissemination of Proceedings of the High Court of Kerala.

I am writing this letter in furtherance of the notice issued to me, which I received today, regarding the contempt of court proceedings initiated on the Court’s own motion. The notice indicates that the Court has taken the view that circulating videos of its proceedings—specifically the video dated 22 July 2026, captioned “Denial of Justice to MSMEs: Cameras Can’t Lie, You Be the Judge”—amounts to an interference with the administration of justice.
The video in question relates to a hearing concerning the rights of my client, an MSME appellant. I published the proceeding in its entirety, as well as a short clip of the final one to two minutes. The sole purpose of sharing this footage was to inform the general public about the court proceedings under our open-justice system, in which citizens have a right to witness court proceedings and to observe whether justice is being duly administered.
The publication of an unedited, untampered video recording of open-court proceedings cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute an interference with the administration of justice or be deemed scandalous. However, as this Court has taken an adverse view of the matter, I am more than willing to delete the two specified videos for the sake of peace.
Nevertheless, 99 percent of the content I circulate on social media is purely academic. I do this as a senior member of the Bar with over 42 years of standing, having entered this Court in 1979 as a litigant in person. Being senior to the Hon’ble CJI, judges of the Supreme Court, and most of the so-called senior advocates, with utmost humility, I believe it is my duty to highlight systemic deficiencies and evils and to advocate for transparency. Where there is a duty to speak, silence is a crime.
Following the issuance of the show-cause notice, many citizens, lawyers, litigants, and retired judges from this Court and other courts have expressed their solidarity with the cause I expose, agreeing that recording and sharing court proceedings does not constitute wrongdoing.
I initiated independent recording because the High Court of Kerala does not live-stream or archive its court proceedings. Since 2010, I have consistently requested the Chief Justice of India and various High Courts, including this Court, to implement comprehensive e-court systems that record, preserve, and provide public access to official court proceedings. As this has not yet been realized, litigants and advocates are left with no choice but to record proceedings themselves.
When I entered the portals of this Court in 1979 as a litigant, litigants comprised a substantial portion of those present in courtrooms. Today, it is difficult to spot even a single litigant in the courtrooms. Litigants, I am afraid to say, are prevented from entering the court premises; why?
The primary allegation against me is that I recorded and circulated court proceedings without prior permission. It is claimed that the two captions I used were scandalous.
I do not dispute that confidentiality must be maintained under Rule 3(9) in specific circumstances. Certain in-camera proceedings—such as those involving the POCSO Act, sexual offences, or national security—certainly require strict privacy. Had I circulated clips from an in-camera trial, an allegation of violating confidentiality would have been justified. However, the proceedings I circulated primarily pertained to an MSME seeking protection in terms of the notification dated 29.05.2015. There was no element of confidentiality involved. How then could I violate the confidentiality restrictions of Rule 3(9)?
Courtrooms are open courts. Any member of the public has the right to enter, observe, and stay informed about judicial proceedings. Far from interfering with the administration of justice, sharing these recordings with lawyers, law students, litigants, and the general public can only subserve the cause of greater transparency, accountability, and public faith in the judiciary. Denying public access weakens trust, transparency, and accountability, whereas the adoption of modern technology and live-streaming directly into citizens’ homes strengthens transparency.
If the Court holds the authority to grant prior approval, it equally possesses the authority to grant ex-post facto ratification under the doctrine of ratification (omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur). I therefore respectfully request you to grant ex-post facto permission for the videos already posted. Should the Court maintain its objection to the two specific videos, I am willing to delete them.
I further request permission to record and disseminate future proceedings in which I appear as a lawyer. Most of these cases involve significant questions of law that offer substantial educational value to the legal community.
Rather than taking a step backward into the dark ages by restricting online access and initiating contempt proceedings, the High Court should lead the way in judicial transparency. I urge the Court to implement real-time live streaming, to archive past proceedings, and to allow litigants to obtain official video records. I remain confident that wiser counsel will prevail and that the Kerala High Court, my alma mater, will support transparency and accountability.
In the above backdrop, I request that ex-post facto permission be granted for the shared proceedings, and that permission be granted to record and disseminate court proceedings until the Court itself live-streams proceedings, archives or preserves such records, and makes copies available to litigants and lawyers, as is done in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and other civilized countries—nay, even in Pakistan.
I await hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Mathews J. Nedumpara
98205 35428