Gujarat High Court Clarifies Live-Streamed Court Proceedings Cannot Be Used as Evidence

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that transcripts from live-streamed court sessions cannot serve as evidence. It suggested removing such videos from YouTube after a certain time. Justices AS Supehia and Gita Gopi made these observations on February 4 in a contempt case involving ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd (AM/NS India). The court dismissed a contempt plea by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association (GOCA) against the company and imposed a Rs 2 lakh cost on the petitioner.

Representative image

The bench described the contempt application as "absolutely ill conceived, frivolous and filed with an ill-motive." The case centred around interim relief previously granted to the steel company by a single judge, which continued after two judges recused themselves. Deepak Khosla, representing GOCA, argued that seeking an extension of the interim order amounted to civil and criminal contempt. He cited past Supreme Court and Gujarat HC verdicts to support his claims.

Transcripts and Evidence

Khosla relied on transcripts from live-streamed court proceedings to justify his arguments. However, the bench noted that using such transcriptions is not permissible as evidence. The court stated that these transcripts are not authorized or certified versions of court proceedings. Therefore, they are inadmissible and violate High Court rules.

The bench highlighted that serious allegations were made against senior advocates and judges in this case. It termed the plea as "an epitome of frivolity," suggesting it was filed to embarrass the advocates and judges involved. The court observed that instead of pursuing legal recourse against past orders, the application seemed aimed at mortifying those representing AM/NS India.

Cost Imposed on Petitioner

The High Court imposed a Rs 2 lakh cost on GOCA under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Courts Gujarat High Court Rules, 1984. The petitioner must deposit this amount within two weeks from the judgment date. The bench emphasized that the contempt application was filed with ill intent to demean judges and advocates, warranting its rejection with exemplary costs.

Regarding live-streaming, the bench suggested removing court proceeding videos from YouTube after a specific period. However, it left this decision to the discretion of the High Court Chief Justice. The registry was instructed to inform the Chief Justice about this recommendation.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established rules regarding evidence in legal proceedings. It also highlights concerns about using live-streamed content as official records in judicial matters.