Mathews J Nedumpara
98205 35428
24th April 2026.

The court exercises the sovereign judicial function of the state, namely “we the people.” The court doesn’t mean the judge; it means the judge, the litigants, their lawyers, and the public at large.

The presence of the public at large is the surest guarantee against all sorts of evils and inequity. The presence of the public at large keeps the judge himself on trial while hearing a case—nay, conducting a trial.

​The High Court of Delhi is a superior court of record. The concept of a “court of record” has its origin in the practice of keeping memorials of such proceedings before it. Everything that transpired has been reduced to writing and is kept in perpetuity. It is of such great verity that the correctness of the same cannot be questioned anywhere except before it.

​In those days, there was no technology. Everything was handwritten. Today, we have the technology. Cameras cannot lie; they record everything accurately. The video recording of court proceedings and access to such records is the only guarantee we have today against judicial corruption and improbity.

I started the campaign for video recording of court proceedings in 2010 as one of the core objectives of NLC. The courts, including the SC, rejected our plea for video recording repeatedly. Eventually, COVID made it an absolute necessity. Judges like Justices Patel, Chandrachud, Lokur, and Kurian—all without exception—who had opposed video recording and live streaming and repeatedly dismissed our petitions, became its proponents. Yes, they made a necessity a great virtue.

​Our demand for the preservation of video records and access to such records, however, continues to be resisted, leaving the litigant public with no option but to record the proceedings themselves. This is what Kejriwal did. There is nothing wrong in it. If the Rules which the court has made render it illegal, it is the Rule that should change. Courts have no power to enact laws curtailing our fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression. The Right to Information is an integral part of such rights. It is said good men must not obey laws too well. Lex injusta non est lex—an unjust law is no law. There is a right to rebellion where the law is unjust.

​The Delhi High Court has asked social media platforms to remove the video where Kejriwal argues his plea for the recusal of Justice Ms. Sharma. The public has a right to watch the video, which is an extension of their right to be onlookers. The order of the Delhi High Court is violative of the very concept of an open court and the right to information—nay, freedom of speech and expression.

​We, as citizens, have a duty to raise our voices against such illegal orders by all democratic and constitutional means. I am only glad to be part of any such movement—nay, even willing to lead such a movement from the forefront.