Karnataka High Court issues notice on plea seeking clear guidelines on accessing live-streamed hearings that are archived but not uploaded

According to Kamath, a hearing was conducted before the court hall No.15 on November 13, 2025, which was digitally recorded as part of the live-streaming and recording framework, but it was not uploaded on the official platform, which is the Karnataka High Court’s YouTube channel.

Thus, he filed an application under Rule 8(3) seeking access to the archival recording of the said hearing. However, the Assistant Registrar (IT) rejected it on the grounds that archival recordings do not constitute an official record of proceedings under Rule 10(1)(ii), and recordings for academic purposes can be permitted only by the court under Rule 10(2)(iv) and not by the designated officer.

Rule 8(3) states that access to copies of the recordings not uploaded will be sanctioned by the designated officer, who will act as per law. Kamath argued that Rule 8(3) expressly vests the power to sanction access to non-uploaded recordings in a designated officer, subject to an application. It is the only provision dealing with access, while Rule 10(2)(iv), relied upon in the impugned endorsement, regulated the use of authorised recordings.

He argued that the assistant registrar’s letter wrongly treats a provision governing the use of authorised recordings as a bar on access, by holding that only the court can permit recordings even for academic purposes.

Further, Kamath claimed that if the impugned endorsement is allowed to stand, it would render Rule 8(3) purposeless and compel litigants and advocates to repeatedly approach the court for access to archival recordings, thereby defeating the purpose of the live-streaming rules.

He prayed for quashing of the impugned endorsement and for grant of access to the archival recording sought by him and for framing of guidelines.