The Karnataka High Court has held that the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021 do not give a litigant any right to obtain copies of recordings of court proceedings unless the Court specifically orders it. Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed a writ petition challenging the registry’s refusal to provide audio-visual recordings of proceedings in a writ appeal.
Background
The petitioner, A. Sathyanarayana Swamy, aged about 72, applied in Form III for copies of the audio-visual recordings of court proceedings relating to WA No. 929/2025.
By a communication dated 23.07.2026, the Assistant Registrar (Information Technology) of the High Court rejected the request, relying on Rule 10(1)(ii) of the Rules. The communication stated that archival data does not automatically become the official record unless the Bench expressly directs, and therefore cannot be made available for access and use for the purpose sought.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking to quash the rejection and a direction to grant access to the recordings. He also sought a direction to frame and publish guidelines or standard operating procedures governing the exercise of power under Rule 8(3), covering the considerations for grant or refusal of access, reasoned orders, timelines for deciding Form III applications and an internal review mechanism.
Arguments
Advocate Girish Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, relied on Rule 8 of the Rules, under which access to copies of recordings not uploaded is to be sanctioned by the Designated Officer, and an application for copies is to be made in Form III.
He contended that since the application had been made in Form III as contemplated under Rule 8(3), its rejection was erroneous and the recording sought ought to have been granted.
Court’s Findings on Live-Streaming Rules
The Court noted that the rejection was based on Rule 10(1)(ii), which provides that “The Archival Data shall not constitute the official record of the Court Proceedings unless otherwise directed by the Bench.”
Justice Poonacha also referred to Rule 10(2), which lays down prohibitions and restrictions on the usage of recordings and live streams. Under it, no person or entity other than an authorised one may record, share or disseminate live-streamed proceedings or archival data, and the use of authorised recordings in their original form may be permitted by the Court, among other things, for disseminating news and for training, academic and educational purposes.
Reading the two provisions together, the Court held:
“It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court.”
It added:
“In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise.”
Outcome
Holding the petition to be devoid of merits, the High Court dismissed the writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage.
Case Title: A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. High Court of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28070 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Bench: Justice C.M. Poonacha
