Writ Petition No. 4777 of 2025 – Seeking Livestreaming and Preservation of Video Records of Court Proceedings to End the Ill-treatment of Lawyers and Litigants

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

WITH

 

I.A. NO. OF 2025
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE MATTER AS PARTY IN PERSONS

 

PAPER BOOK
(KINDLY SEE INDEX INSIDE)

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & 3 ORS.:
PARTY-IN-PERSONS
MOB. NO. +91 9820535428

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
S.NO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
INDEX
S. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which it belongs Remarks
Part I
[Contents of Paper Book] Part-II
[Contents of file alone.

[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v]
E-Court Fee
1 Listing Performa. ‘A1-A3’ `A-A1’
2 Cover page of Paper Book A-2
3 Index of Record of Proceedings A-3
4 Defect List A-4
5 Note Sheet NS 1 to
6 Synopsis & List of Dates B-F
7 Writ Petition with Affidavit. 1-21
8 ANNEXURE P-1
A true copy of the Affidavit along with chart filed before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60205 of 2024 dated 06.02.2025.

22-61
9. ANNEXURE P-2
A true copy of the Objectives of the Association dated 31.03.2014. 62-64
10. ANNEXURE P-3
A true copy of the letter dated 13.11.2010 addressed by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 to the then Chief Justice, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 65-68
11. ANNEXURE P- 4
A true copy of the judgment dated 07.01.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1587 of 2015.
69-140
12. ANNEXURE P- 5
A true copy of the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 2163 of 2016. 141-145
12. ANNEXURE P- 6
A true copy of the Letter dated 10.08.2023 sent by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 146-148
13. ANNEXURE P- 7
A true copy of the Letter dated 31.10.2023 sent by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. 149-151
14. I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue the above Writ Petition as Party in Person. 152-154

15. ANNEXURE A-1
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 2979 5739 1137 of the Petitioner in Person No. 1. 155
16. ANNEXURE A-2
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 9377 1660 6859 of the Petitioner in Person No. 2. 156

17. ANNEXURE A-3
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 8634 9836 9864 of the Petitioner in Person No. 3. 157
18. ANNEXURE A-4
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 5281 0154 7535 of the Petitioner in Person No. 4. 158
19. ANNEXURE A-5
A true copy of SPA executed in favour of Petitioner in Person No. 1 by Petitioner No. 2 to 4. 159-161
20. Letter for clarification 162-164
21 Memo of Appearance 165
22. F/M 166
23 Copy of the Bar Council ID of the Petitioner in Person No. 1 herein. 167
24 Letter for Re-checking 168

 

 

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION
The case pertains to (Please tick / check the correct box):

Central Act: (Title) Constitution of India

Section: Under Article 32 of Constitution of India

Central Rule: (Title) N.A.

Rule No(s) N.A.

State Act: (Title) N.A.

Section: N.A.

State Rule: (Title) N.A.

Rule No(s) N.A.

Impugned Interim Order: (Date) N.A.

Impugned Final Order / Decree: (Date) N.A.

High Court: (Name) N.A.

Names of Judges: N.A.

Tribunal / Authority: (Name) N.A.
1. Nature of Matter
Civil
Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS.
(b) E-Mail Id: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
(c) Mobile Phone Number: 9820535428
3. (a) Respondent: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.
(b) E-Mail Id: N. A.
(c) Mobile Phone Number: N. A.
4. (a) Main Category Classification. 1800 Ordinary Civil Matters
(b) Sub Classification: 1807 Others
5. Not to be listed before: N.A.
6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details:
No similar matter is disposed of by this Hon’ble Court.
(b) Similar pending matter with case details:
No similar matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court.
7. Criminal Matters: Not Applicable
(a) Whether accused / convict has surrendered: Yes No
(b) FIR No. N.A. Date: N.A.
(c) Police Station: N.A.
(d) Sentence Awarded: N.A.
(e) Period of sentence undergone including period of detention / custody undergone: NA.
(f) Whether any earlier case between the same parties is filed: N.A.
(g) Particulars of the FIR and Case: N.A.
(h) Whether any bail application was preferred earlier and decision thereupon: N.A.
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 Notification: N.A.
(b) Date of Section 6 Notification: N.A.
(c) Date of Section 17 Notification: N.A.
9. Tax Matters: Sate the tax effect: N.A.
10. Special Category (First Petitioner / Appellant Only):
Senior Citizen > 65 Years SC / ST Woman /Child Disabled Legal Aid Case In Custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim Matters): N.A.
12. Whether there was is litigation on the same point of law, if yes, details thereof. No

 

Place: New Delhi
Dated: 11.08.2025
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
Mob. No. 9820535428
E-Mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

SYNOPSIS
1. The Petitioners Lawyers and litigants – are constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to seek an end to the ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants and the discriminatory and unjust practices prevailing in courts across the country.
2. A common man who enters the temple of justice, whether at the lowest forum or before this Hon’ble Court, is often dismayed to find lawyers being unduly obsequious and judges treating both lawyers and litigants with discourtesy, if not outright rudeness.
3. Quite recently, in the Bombay High Court, a young lawyer collapsed in the courtroom while being harshly reprimanded by the Bench. Across the length and breadth of the country, such instances of humiliation and ill-treatment are common. Social media regularly reflects the deep public dismay at the manner in which lawyers are addressed, and at the casual manner in which petitions are dismissed.
4. In one widely circulated video, a High Court judge is seen calling a junior advocate appearing before him “garbage of the court”. In many High Courts, matters argued by junior lawyers are dismissed abruptly and without a fair hearing, whereas cases handled by designated Senior Advocates, or juniors who are relatives of judges or senior lawyers, are heard for hours on end—even at the cost of discharging the rest of the day’s board.
5. The common man is particularly appalled by the perfunctory manner in which Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 are dismissed. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that the average time taken to dispose of an SLP is a mere 93 seconds.
6. No other jurisdiction in the world determines the validity of a precedent on the basis of the strength of the bench rather than the soundness of the principle it enunciates. A true precedent is a principle of law that has been consistently reaffirmed. The strength of the bench, and the inter se majority of judges, is a concept relevant to the doctrine of res judicata, under which even an erroneous decision is binding between the parties.
7. In contrast, the value of a precedent lies in the validity of its underlying principle, not the numerical strength of the bench. However, in India, an anomalous practice has evolved: a bench cannot disagree with a coordinate bench, and certainly not with a larger bench, without referring the matter to an even larger bench.
8. This faulty practice results in an absurd situation where the Hon’ble Chief Justice is compelled to constitute larger benches of 3, 5, 7 or more judges to reconsider earlier erroneous judgments, which are nonetheless treated as binding precedent solely because of the earlier bench’s size.
9. The practical consequence is disastrous: precious judicial time is consumed in hearing matters driven by powerful lobbies, to the complete exclusion of the common litigant. The already meagre average of “93 seconds” for an SLP will shrink further, making justice effectively inaccessible for ordinary citizens.
10. The Petitioners therefore seek appropriate declarations and directions from this Hon’ble Court to:
Prohibit discriminatory treatment of advocates and litigants;
Ensure equal opportunity of hearing irrespective of the counsel’s status;
Hence the instant Writ Petition.
LIST OF DATES
1979 Petitioner No. 1 enters the portal of Munsiff Court, Palaas a Plaintiff.
1984 Petitioner No. 1 joins the legal profession.
2010 Petitioner No. 1 addresses a letter to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court advocating for video recording of court proceedings and preservation of such record and access of the same to the litigants and lawyers.
2014 Petitioners meet Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, who commendably agreed to consider the feasibility of audio recording of court proceedings.
2015 Supreme Court quashed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and NJAC Act. Petitioner No. 1 who had attended all the 31 days of NJAC hearing, was the only person who sought a declaration that NJAC is a will of the people and a challenge on the same is not maintainable.
06.10.2016 Bombay High Court dismisses plea for video recording of Court proceedings, calling such a move to “reduce the court into a circus”.
Supreme Court dismisses Petitioners’ Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court judgment.
03.05.2018 Supreme Court dismisses Art 32 Writ Petition for video recording of Court Proceedings.
2021 COVID-19 pandemic compels the introduction of virtual hearings in almost all Courts and Tribunals in this country, including the Supreme Court.
Though virtual courts continued even after Covid, the plea of the Petitioners and likeminded people for preservation of such record for a reasonable time and access to such records as a matter of right to the litigant public/stakeholders remain a mirage. Ill treatment of lawyers and litigants in Courts continue unabated. The only means to put an end to such ill treatment is to preserve the video record. And to make available to the lawyers and litigants such record as a matter of right. The Hon’ble CJI/Supreme Court being the guardian and protector of the Fundamental Rights, may be pater familia of the Indian Judiciary, is dutybound to take such steps as are necessary to bring an end to the ill treatment to lawyers and litigants and the resultant injustice.
11.08.2025 Hence the present Writ Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
ADVOCATE
101, 1ST FLOOR, GUNDECHA CHAMBER,
NAGINDAS ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA-400001. PETITIONER NO. 1

2. ROHINI AMIN
ADVOCATE
B-705, NIRMAN APARTMENTS, R.J. MARG, PUMP HOUSE, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA-400093. PETITIONER NO. 2

3. HEMALI SURESH KURNE,
ADVOCATE
28-A WING, SHUBH SHAGUN BUILDING,
RISHIKESH CHS LTD., SECTOR-34,
MANSAROVAR, NAVI MUMBAI-410209,
MAHARASHTRA. PETITIONER NO. 3

4. MANISHA NIMESH MEHTA
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
PRESIDENT IOF MSME ASSOCIATION
1905, ROSELLA, PANT NAGAR,
GHATKOPAR, MUMBAI-400075. PETITIONER NO. 4
VERSUS
1. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
BHAGWAN DAS ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001. RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110001. RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
21, ROUSE AVENUE INSITUTIONAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110002. RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682031. RESPONDENT NO. 4

5. HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH CT RD, PARRY’S CORNER,
GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU-600104. RESPONDENT NO. 5

6. NATIONAL INFORMATIC CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY IT DIRECTOR GENERAL
MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
A-BLOCK, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003. RESPONDENT NO. 6

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS IN PERSONS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. ‘Judiciary is the last resort’ is an expression which resonates in the minds of the common people, a refuge where the citizen has been denied justice at other departments of the state. A reference has been made to the judiciary as the last resort by Justice P.N Bhagwati in SP Gupta’s case and Justice H.R Khanna in ADM Jabalpur case, so too, in the constitutional Assembly debates. It is for this reason that by virtue of Article 32, an access to the Supreme Court without recourse to any other court, the Supreme Court as the first court of original jurisdiction and the very right to access the Supreme Court, even came to be made a fundamental right by the founding fathers.
2. The founding fathers, undoubtedly, were men of profound wisdom and experience, yet, they were humble enough to acknowledge themselves to be not truly representative of the people of this country and while framing the constitution left everything to the care of the future Parliaments which were to be formed on a universal franchise. The only restriction it imposed on the Parliament was that the laws enacted by it shall not infringe the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Except for this restriction, the founding fathers bestowed unstinted freedom and power to the future Parliaments to enact laws for the governance of this great country, the largest democracy in the world.
3. The Parliament, today, unfortunately, is reduced to an inferior tribunal where writ of certiorari is sought in innumerable petitions to “quash and set aside” even a constitutional amendment. The specific instance are the petitions in challenge of the Constitution 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act. When the constitution came into force, we had the civil courts which we inherited from the British, empowered and competent to embark upon any controversy of a civil nature and bind the parties before it by its judgment/orders. The Government of India Act, 1935, was in fact the constitution of the dominion of India, though the term constitution was not employed. The Government of India Act, 1935, in unmistakable terms, had demarcated the legislative powers of the Federal legislature and the provisional legislature. It had three lists, the federal list, provisional list and concurrent list. In a sense, the Government of India Act, 1935, is the basic foundation on which the Constitution of India is built. The Petitioners make a brief reference to these aspects only to emphasize that the jurisdiction to declare an Act of Parliament or statutory instrument were exclusively vested in the civil courts. All that was required was that the court which was considering the constitutionality of an Act of the Federal or provisional legislature or statutory instrument shall issue notice to the Attorney General/Advocate General/Government Pleader as the case may be. Under the constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and not the first court of original jurisdiction.
4. The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom incorporated Article 32 of the Constitution and guaranteed the right to seek writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and declared access to Article 32 to itself to be a fundamental right in their anxiety to ensure that fundamental rights are protected without fail. If the Supreme Court were to be a court of first and final instance without recourse to any other Court, then that would lead to a situation where a Supreme Court of a hundred judges may not prove adequate. Under the Constitutional scheme, the true constitutional court of unlimited plenary jurisdiction, is the civil court. Like Article 32, Article 226 came to be incorporated only out of the anxiety of the founding fathers to protect the fundamental rights.
5. The founding fathers, in their wildest of dreams, would not have ever thought that Article 32 would be invoked to challenge Acts of Parliament, nay even constitutional amendments, stripping the civil courts of its jurisdiction and undoing the pyramidical structure of the administration of justice. The reason the Petitioners make a reference to the constitutional history and scheme is because the invocation of Article 32 to challenge the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament instead of instituting a suit has led to the Supreme Court assuming to itself the jurisdiction of the civil court. The lobby in Delhi kept on challenging the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament under Article 32 by means of a writ of certiorari treating the Parliament as a subordinate tribunal with impunity.
6. While matters stood thus, a new terminology came to be coined, namely, the basic structure. Before the basic structure theory, one could only invoke Article 32 complaining the violation of fundamental rights and nothing short of it. After the advent of the basic structure theory in Kesavananda Bharti, article 32 came to be invoked complaining violation of the basic structure without even a faint plea that a fundamental right is infringed. The concept of ‘pro bono’ litigation which is akin to the principle of ‘relator’ action/qui tam action, which is entirely sound in law, in the course of time, took on a new avatar where vested interests unabashedly claim themselves to represent the public at large and challenge even constitutional amendments entirely behind the back of the people/stakeholders.
7. When the Parliament enacts a law, the people of this country are symbolically present. And it is with the consent of the people that a law is enacted. A record of the Parliament, therefore, would bind all. On the contrary, the record of a court will only bind the parties before it and no none else. If the court has evolved a principle where none existed or reaffirmed an existing principle, the said principle is binding in future cases as a precedent. Article 141 which is nothing but a reproduction of Section 212 of the Government of Act, 1935, only embodies the principle of precedent, namely, stare decisis quiete non movera, namely, to stand by settled principles and not move away from them.
8. Precedent is a useful concept and one of the major sources of common law. The trouble today is, precedent which is what Article 141 contemplates, is no longer a precedent, but the “law of the land”. Concepts like that no judgment can be read as a statute or in substitution of a statue, and that where there is a conflict between statute and a judgment, it is the statute that will prevail have been forgotten. In law schools, it is taught that the judgments of the Supreme Court are the “law of the land”. The Supreme Court on Mondays and Fridays sit in 17 benches – 17 Parliaments, each laying down the “law of the land”. Why the Petitioners make a reference to this is because the Constitution in reality today is very distinct from what was conceived by the founding fathers in letter and spirit. The constitution and the Courts have been hijacked by a few dynasties of lawyers. Re-writing the constitution, the court usurped to itself the power of appointment of judges. This has resulted in nepotism and favouritism in appointments. If one were to look at the composition of the collegiums of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the de facto authority which appoints judges, it consists almost entirely of the kith and kin of former judges, senior lawyers. The Petitioners had produced a chart supported by an affidavit in W.P (Dairy) no. 15529 of 2025 highlighting the nepotism in judiciary. A true copy of the Affidavit along with chart filed before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60205 of 2024 dated 06.02.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (PAGES 22 TO 61).
9. The nation is at dire straits. The Constitution 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act which both Houses of Parliament enacted unanimously except for the sole dissenting vote of Ram Jethmalani and which had received the assent of majority of the State legislatures came to be quashed and set aside at the instance of SCOARA, a small group of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court, entirely behind the back of the people of this country. The Petitioner no. 1 who attended all 31 days of the entire hearing of the NJAC case, questioned the very maintainability of SCOARA’s petition on twin grounds, namely, that no Article 32 petition will lie without alleging violation of fundamental rights and secondly, that if the challenge is in public interest, it can only be conducted in the form of representative proceedings. His contentions were not answered.
10. The NJAC was quashed holding that the collegium which is the creation of the Judges-2 case is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the Parliament has no power to alter the basic structure. The effort of the Parliament for judicial reforms, the effort of more than two decades, came to be defeated. All this happened because the dynasties in Delhi wanted to desperately hold on to the power of appointments which they have been enjoying. PIL and basic structure, two concepts which are contrary to the elementary principles of jurisprudence, reduced the Parliament into an inferior tribunal and the Court the ultimate adjudicator even in matters of legislative and executive policy. The concept of balance of power came to be titled and the Supreme Court has become the most powerful court on earth.
11. Why the Petitioners have made a detailed reference as above is because the collegium system where judges appoint themselves and the designation system where judges anoint lawyers as senior advocates has rendered the bar too obsequious. Every lawyer who has crossed the age of 40, who wants to be a judge or senior counsel realizes that the easiest way to achieve that is to be subservient to the bench. This has led to the bar losing all its vitality. Senior Designation is considered to be a bounty at the hands of the court, which can be withdrawn if they were to ever displease the bench as has happened in a couple of cases.
12. A common man who enters the temple of justice, be it at the lowest forum or the Supreme Court, would find the lawyers to be obsequious and would find the judges often treating the lawyers and litigants most rudely. Quite recently, a young lawyer in the Bombay High Court, collapsed in the court while being harshly reprimanded by the Court. Across the width and breadth of this country such incidents of ill-treatment happen very often. Social media reflects the widespread public shock at the manner in which lawyers are treated and the manner in which petitions are dismissed. There is a video in which a high court judge is seen calling a junior advocate appearing before him “garbage of the court”. In many High Courts, while the cases of junior lawyers are dismissed abruptly and without a hearing, the cases of the designated senior lawyers and juniors who are the kith and kin of judges or senior lawyers are heard for hours on end, even by discharging the rest of the board.
13. The common man is appalled by the manner in which leave to appeal under Article 136 are dismissed. The average time an SLP is dismissed is said to be “93 seconds”. No where else in the world is the validity of a precedent determined based on the strength of the bench, but based on the soundness of the principle that came to be evolved or followed. What is a precedent is a principle which has been repeatedly and repeatedly reaffirmed. The strength of the bench and the inter se majority is a concept which belongs to the doctrine of res judicata. In res judicata, an erroneous decision is binding. On the contrary, for a precedent what matters is the validity of the principle and not the strength of the bench. We, however, follow a principle contrary to the first principles. For us what is relevant is not the principle, but the strength of the bench. A bench cannot disagree with a coordinate bench, not to speak of a larger bench. The bench will be constrained to refer the matter to a larger bench. The consequence of this faulty practice is unimaginable. The Chief Justice is under a duty to constitute larger benches of 3, 5, 7 to overrule the previous erroneous judgments which are treated as precedent. This will lead to a scenario where the Court will not have even the current meagre “93 seconds” to hear the case of the common litigant, the entire time of the Court being consumed by the powerful lobbies in total exclusion of the others.
14. What is undeniable is that we have two classes of lawyers and litigants, the privileged and the less privileged. Even Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act too, sadly, ordains that there shall be two classes of lawyers, ex facie violative of Article 14. It is a travesty of justice that the challenge on the validity of the section remains to be acknowledged. There can be no two opinions that our justice delivery has failed to live up to the ethos our Constitution, namely, that the laws shall not discriminate between people and that it shall not hold against the less privileged.
15. Article 14, the Petitioners beg to submit, finds its infraction more pronounced within the temples of justice than in any other wing of the state. What ought to be done therefore is for all stakeholders, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the press, the informed sections of society, to all put their heads together and bring in radical reforms so that the discriminatory and unjust practices are brought to an end and greater transparency, fairness and justice becomes a reality in our administration of justice. The National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms (NLC) is an initiative of first-generation lawyers in that direction. A true copy of the Objectives of the Association dated 31.03.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 (PAGES 62 TO_64).
16. The Petitioners are afraid to say that nothing concrete has been done in the last 75 years to bridge the gap between the privileged and the less privileged, to make the temples of justice accessible to all. On the contrary, far from introducing affirmative action to eliminate discrimination, by bringing into existence the collegium system of appointment of judges and institutionalising and legitimising the system where judges anoint lawyers as senior advocates, violation of the concept of equality before law and equal opportunities is made legitimate. The scenario today is that very well-meaning people, lawyers, judges, believe that to introduce affirmative action is a near impossibility. The Petitioners, however, do not subscribe to such idea.
17. The Petitioners believe that the solution to difficult problems is not necessarily difficult but can be achieved through simple means. All that we need is an innovative mind, particularly, access to technology. The Petitioner No.1 who entered the portals of justice as a litigant in a Civil Suit in the year 1979 and later joined the bar in 1984 has witnessed with his own eyes many an aberration and denial of justice. For considerations of reticence, the Petitioner refrains from elaborating upon such unfortunate incidents in so many words. The Petitioner no. 1/NLC addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in 2010 requesting the adoption of e-courts, in particular, video recording of court proceedings, preservation of such records for such reasonable periods as seen feasible and access to such records to the litigant and the public at large, except of course in cases where such access would be contrary to public interest. A true copy of the letter dated 13.11.2010 addressed by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 to the then Chief Justice, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-3 (PAGES 65 TO_68).
18. The Petitioners did not receive any response whatsoever from the authorities concerned. However, that did not dissuade the Petitioners from pursuing their cause. In 2014, they met the then Chief Justice of India, R.M Lodha, and received the first ever encouraging response. His lordships were pleased to agree to consider the introduction of audio recording of court proceedings. However, his lordships tenure being short, nothing concrete could be achieved.
19. The Petitioners/NLC took recourse to Article 226 in furtherance of their cause. A Division bench of the Bombay High Court by judgement dated 06.10.2016dismissed the Petitioner’s plea holding that video recording if allowed would reduce the “court into a circus”. A true copy of the judgment dated 07.01.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1587 of 2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4 (PAGES 69 TO 140). A true copy of the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 2163 of 2016 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5 (PAGES 141 TO_145). Leave against the said judgement was declined.
20. The Petitioner No. 1 thereafter filed a petition under Article 32 and the same came to be dismissed in limine.
21. Apart from the Petitioners, many other lawyers and litigants, too, relentlessly fought for video recording of court proceedings. Eventually, the covid pandemic of 2020 forced it into reality. Those who opposed the very idea of video recording of court proceedings and preservation of such records and access to the public at large, a simple measure which would bring in transparency and accountability, too welcomed it, nay, made a virtue out of a necessity.
22. In the last 75 years, the one thing that contributed so much in terms of transparency and accountability is technology, camera in court rooms. In spite of the revolutionary, technological development, the ill treatment of lawyers and litigants, favouritism and other malpractices continue, maybe to a lesser degree. ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ said Martin Luther King. In our Courts, it happens everywhere, right from the lowest forum to the highest court of the land. Justice Krishna Iyer lamented about the arrogance, pomposity, irritability and other such vices to be a real threat to the just fair and equitable administration of justice. David Pannick called it ‘Judges’ disease’.
23. The ill treatment of lawyers and litigants, which by no stretch of imagination can be seen as stray incidents need to be addressed with all seriousness and urgency that the same calls for. The easiest way is to video record the proceedings of all courts and tribunals and to maintain such records for a reasonable period of time and to make it available to the litigant/lawyer on application as a matter of right. Since the Supreme Court and high courts have taken upon to itself, almost entirely, the affairs of the judiciary and the governments have largely been kept away from making any major decisions concerning the administration of justice, including even appointment of judges, video recording of court proceedings and preservation of such records and making the same available to the lawyers/litigants, the stakeholders, could be made possible by the Supreme Court/High Courts itself.
24. The First Petitioner has addressed innumerable letters to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the High Courts, and other constitution functionaries including the President of India, the Prime Minister, the Law Minister seeking urgent steps in the realm of judicial reforms, in particular to prevent the ill treatment of lawyers and litigants. A true copy of the Letter dated 10.08.2023 sent by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-6 (PAGES 146 TO_148). A true copy of the Letter dated 31.10.2023 sent by the Petitioner in Person No. 1 herein to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-7 (PAGES 149 TO 151).
25. At a time when, world over, clamor is made for open court justice dispensation, even in countries where the common law system is not in vogue, unfortunately and unbelievably, entry to the common litigant is increasingly denied, even in the High Courts of Kerala and Madras, known and adored for their great tradition and access to justice, of which the most important is the entry of the public at large. In the Madras High Court, the CRPF is in control of the very entry to court, which in itself speaks volumes about, the sad state of our open court system.
GROUNDS
The grounds have become part of the statement of facts and to repeat the same would mean rendering this petition unnecessarily voluminous. Nonetheless, it could be stated briefly as infra.
A. The Supreme Courts and the High Courts are courts of record of plenary jurisdiction, even conferred with the power of contempt. All judicial proceedings are proceedings which are open to the public at large. This Court in Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Samuel & Ors. on 9 November, AIR 1985 SC 61, quoted Bentham with approval as infra.
“In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity”.
B. Right to information is considered to be an essential ingredient of the right to freedom of speech and expression. This court in Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India, AIR 2018 SC 4806, was pleased to hold that the video recording of court proceedings constitutes an essential ingredient of the right to freedom of speech of expression, nay, even the very right to life.
C. “The word ‘record,'” writes Lord Coke, “is derived of the Latin word recordor, that is, to keep in mind. And therefore, a record or inrolment is a memorial or monument of so high a nature, as it importeth in itself such an absolute verity, as if it be pleaded that there is no such record, it shall not receive any trial by witness, jury, or otherwise, but only by itself. And every court of record is the King’s Court, wherein if the judges do err, a writ of error doth lie. But the County Court, the Hundred Court, the Court Baron, and such like, are no courts of record; and therefore the proceedings therein may be denied, and tried by jury, and upon their judgments a writ of error lieth not, but a writ of false judgment, for that they are no courts of record, because they cannot hold plea of debt or trespass, if the debt or damages do amount to forty shillings, or of any trespass vi et armis. Monumenta, que nos recorda vocamus, sunt veritatis et vetustatis vestigia” (Everest on Estoppel, Chapter II, Second Edn.).
D. Even in the days of CJ Coke, everything that transpires in the court is recorded. However, that is not the case in our country. Video recording of court proceedings and preservation of such records would help our courts to live up to what is contemplated by the term court of record. Such a step would strengthen the faith of the common man in our courts so too strengthen the concept of transparency. It will act as a bulwark against and evil in every shape.
E. The words freedom of speech and expression would take within its ambit the right to information. The Petitioners, citizens of this Country, have every right to know whatever transpires from the seats of justice, for every power is a trust. The Judges exercise the sovereign power of we the people. Video recording and live streaming of Court proceedings and access to such record is an essential ingredient of the freedom of speech and expression contained in the Article of 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The video record are therefore liable to be preserved for a reasonable time to ensure access to the same to the litigants/lawyers, stakeholders.
26. That the Petitioner in Person had filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court for seeking similar reliefs.
PRAYER
a) To declare that the concept of Court of record and the concept of open court and considerations of accountability and transparency in judiciary would make it imperative that the proceedings of all courts and tribunals in this country are video recorded and that such records are maintained and preserved for a reasonable period of time and that access to such records are made available as a matter of right to the litigant, lawyer and other stakeholders, particularly to prevent ill treatment of lawyers and litigants in the temples of justice; and
b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to take urgent steps to ensure the video recording of the proceedings of all courts and tribunals in this country, so too, preservation and maintenance of such records for a reasonable time, maybe for a period of six months, and access to such records as a matter of right to lawyers, litigants and other stakeholders to achieve greater transparency and accountability, as also to prevent the ill treatment of lawyers and litigants; and
c) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the authorities concerned to take such meaningful and urgent steps to bring an end to ill treatment of lawyers and litigants; and
d) To declare that undue restrictions on the litigant public to entry into the courts as one finds in Kerala and Madras and elsewhere, renders the concept of open court system redundant and further to issue appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to not impose undue restrictions on entry beyond what is necessitated by concerns of security; and
e) To issue such other and further orders and directions as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINIDNESS THE PETITIONER IN PERSONS SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

Drawn & Filed by:

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
PARTY-IN-PERSON NO. 1
MOB. 9820535428
Drawn on: 07.08.2025
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 11.08.2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
I.A. NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AS PARTY IN PERSONS
TO
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OFINDIA
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS IN PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioners in Person herein have not engaged the services of the an Advocate on Record as the Petitioner is well conversant and can diligently assist the court and the Petitioner in Person herein wishes to pursue the matter as in Person. A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 2979 5739 1137 of the Petitioner in Person No. 1 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (PAGES 155).

A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 9377 1660 6859 of the Petitioner in Person No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 (PAGES 156).
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 8634 9836 9864 of the Petitioner in Person No. 3 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-3 (PAGES 157).
A true copy of the Aadhar Card bearing No. 5281 0154 7535 of the Petitioner in Person No. 4 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-4 (PAGES 158).
A true copy of SPA executed in favour of Petitioner in Person No. 1 by Petitioner No. 2 to 4 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-5 (PAGES 159 TO 161).
2. That the Petitioners in Person are trying to put forth all the facts, circumstances and observations in the form of this Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
5. That the present application is being made in the interest of justice and no prejudice shall be caused to any party if the present application is allowed.
6. That The Petitioner in Person No. 1 is a Advocate with more than four decades of standing, who regularly appears before the Supreme Court, and he wishes to appear and argue the matter himself. The co-petitioners also want him to argue the case on their behalf and the petitioner do not wish to appoint any advocate or Amicus Curie if provided by the Hon’ble Court.
7. That in light of the above, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Permit the Petitioner in No. 1 to appear and argue in person for self and on behalf of all Petitioner in Person herein being the SPA Holder; and
b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS IN PERSON SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Filed by:

 

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
9820535428
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 11.08.2025

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter my appearance for the above-named Petitioners in Person No. 1 herein in the above-mentioned Writ Petition.
Yours faithfully

 

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
ADVOCATE
PETITIONER IN PERSON NO. 1
101, 1ST FLOOR, GUNDECHA, CHAMBER,
NAGINDAS ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI-400001,
MAHARASHTRA
E-MAIL: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
MOB. No. 9820535428
Dated: 11.08.2025
Place: New Delhi

SECTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sl. No. Description Copies C. Fee
1 Listing Proforma 1
2 Synopsis & List of Dates 1
3 Writ Petition with affidavit 1
4 Annexure P-1 to P-7 1
5 I.A. NO. OF 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue the above-mentioned Writ Petition filed before this Hon’ble Court as party in Person. 1
6 Annexure A-1 to A-5 1
7 Memo of Appearances 1
Total 7
Filed by:

Mathews J. Nedumpara
Petitioner In Person No.1,
101, 1st Floor, Gundecha Chambers,
Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra
Mob. No. 9820535428
E-Mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Dated: 11.08.2025
Place: New Delhi