The Kerala High Court has ruled that recording and sharing virtual court proceedings constitutes contempt of court. It further emphasized that lawyers participating in hearings through video conferencing do not have the authority to record or disseminate the proceedings.

The court, presided over by Justice P. Gopinath, observed: “The ‘Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021’, as also the ‘Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - Attending of Court Proceedings through Video Conferencing before the High Court of Kerala’ expressly prohibit the recording of the proceedings of the Court in any manner and therefore the fact that the Lawyers are permitted to enter the proceedings through video conferencing does not mean that the proceedings can be recorded and circulated.”

The Kerala High Court made this observation while hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by companies challenging SARFAESI Act, 2002 proceedings initiated against them by various banks. During the hearing, it was brought to the court’s attention that the proceedings were being recorded and circulated in WhatsApp groups, including those of borrowers and bank law officers.

When questioned, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpura, representing the petitioners, defended his actions, claiming a right to record and share court proceedings, emphasizing that “transparency is absolutely essential in judicial proceedings.”

The court, however, rejected this argument, citing the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing video conferencing before the High Court of Kerala. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arundhati Roy, In Re (2002), underscoring that the law of contempt serves to maintain public respect and confidence in the judiciary.

 “The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself,” the court noted.

The court concluded that the unauthorized recording and circulation of proceedings constituted contempt and directed the Registry to present the matter before the Chief Justice for further consideration.