Good men must not obey the law too well” – video recording of court proceedings and its circulation

Good men must not obey the law too well” – video recording of court proceedings and its circulation

Mathews J. Nedumpara

98205 35428

17.03.2025.

 

The Kerala High Court took objection to our recording of the proceedings and sharing of the same. Though not done by me personally, I have no hesitation to take responsibility. Several MSMEs perturbed by the unfortunate fact that the Courts have been denying them the benefit of the notification which has received the assent of both houses of the Parliament which prohibits recovery action except with the permission of the committee, record the VC proceedings, at the various forums, High Court, Supreme Court etc.

 

 

2. Quite recently I defended the cause of an MSME before the Kerala High Court, recordings of the same were shared among litigants and lawyers. It came to the notice of the court. I fully justify the same quoting Bentham that ‘publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity’. I further pleaded that the right to video record the proceedings and the access thereof is an integral part of the very right to freedom and expression and that the same cannot be compromised or sacrificed merely because the Rules framed by the Kerala High Court prohibit such recording or sharing. In doing so, I believe I am on a sound legal foundation. A citizen, like the sovereign, is free to do whatever is not expressly prohibited.

 

3. Nothing can be a crime unless the law expressly provides for it – ‘nullum crimen sine lege’. The Parliament alone, where we are all symbolically present, can create a new penal provision, it alone has the power to prescribe punishment – ‘nulla poena sine lege’. The Rules which the High Court makes are in the realm of subordinate legislation, which cannot take away or abridge substantive right, not to speak of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. With the greatest of respect, I beg to submit that such recording or sharing can constitute no contempt of court.

 

4. Contempt of Court is a cathartic jurisdiction belonging to the dark ages, which became obsolete in all modern democracies. The Court is clearly wrong in its prima facie opinion that such recording interferes with the administration of justice. I believe the reverse to be true. It is wrong to think that the public can be kept ignorant of judicial proceedings. The only means to enhance the faith in the impartiality and efficiency of the administration of justice is to allow greater access to judicial proceedings.

 

5. The Supreme Court said sunlight is the best disinfectant. High Courts of Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Patna provide live streaming of the court proceedings on https://doj.gov.in/live-streaming/ and some even via their official channels on Youtube. What is left is for other High Courts to follow suit. When live streaming of court proceedings, i.e free access to anyone and everyone to view court proceedings, has become the order of the day, how can objection be taken to the sharing of such publicly available proceedings? Recording of court proceedings and its circulation is undertaken by several social media pages and platforms and has become the norm. Suffice to say, an idea whose time has come, no army can prevent.