Gujarat HC wants videos of court proceedings removed from YouTube after specific period

Ahmedabad: In a significant development that could set a precedent, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday opined that live-streamed videos of court proceedings must be removed from YouTube after a specific period.

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi, however, said that the discretion in this regard is with the Chief Justice.

The bench made the observation while dismissing a contempt of court plea seeking action against Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd, its office bearers, and its owners.

The Gujarat Operational Creditors Association filed the petition seeking contempt of court proceedings.

The bench discussed in detail the use of videos of court proceedings in the litigation. "We are of the opinion that the videos of the court proceedings are required to be removed from YouTube after a specific period; however, we leave it to the discretion of Hon’ble the Chief Justice," the bench stated.

The civil contempt of court action was sought by the Association, taking exception to litigation initiated by Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd and an interim order passed by a single-judge bench. The petitioner association relied heavily on the court proceedings and substantiated its case by submitting voluminous transcripts of the proceedings.

The division bench imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on the Association, terming it “absolutely ill-conceived, frivolous, and filed with an ill-motive to demean the learned Single Judge and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents.”

The court did not approve of the petitioner's heavy reliance on court proceedings. 

After citing the rules for usage of such videos, the bench stated: “The use of transcription of live streaming court proceedings cannot be treated as authorised/certified/official version of anything relating to the court proceedings, and the same cannot be allowed to be treated as evidence of anything relating to the court proceedings and will also be inadmissible, and violation of the mandate of Rules will invite proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, formulation of the transcripts by the applicant from the live-streamed videos runs contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules…”

The bench also deprecated the reliance placed on the unauthorised transcripts by the applicant.