The Gujarat High Court recommended that videos of livestreamed court hearings be removed from YouTube after a specified period.

The bench, consisting of Justices AS Supehia and Gita Gopi, emphasized that the final decision on this matter rests with Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal.

The Court directed the registry to inform the Chief Justice accordingly.

The Bench made this remark while addressing the use of transcripts from livestreamed hearings as evidence by advocate Deepak Khosla and his client, the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, in violation of the High Court's established rules.

Khosla had relied on unauthorized transcripts of the Court's livestream recordings from YouTube, which the Court noted was against the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.

The Court highlighted that the rules prohibit using court proceedings as evidence, and any such misuse would lead to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It strongly condemned Khosla's actions, calling them "highly deprecated."

The Bench was hearing an application filed by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, which had made allegations against at least three High Court judges and accused senior lawyers of contempt of court.

The Association and Khosla objected to the repeated extensions of an interim stay order, which had been passed on August 8 of the previous year and extended several times.

Khosla's objections were framed around the claim that the extensions violated Supreme Court orders. The Association had filed a contempt petition against senior lawyers representing Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India, accusing them of seeking the interim order's extensions.

After two single judges—Justices Sangeeta Vishen and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati—recused themselves from the case, Khosla accused them of judicial indiscipline. Similar allegations were made against the subsequent judge, Justice Nikhil S Kariel.

In his arguments, Khosla presented a 259-page audio transcript based on the Court's livestreamed recordings. However, the High Court dismissed the application, imposing ₹2 lakhs as costs on Khosla's client for wasting the Court's time. The Court termed the contempt application as an "epitome of frivolity" and issued a caution against using livestreamed court videos as evidence, proposing that such videos be removed from YouTube after a designated period.