The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought mandatory audio-video recording of proceedings before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), observing that such recordings cannot be treated as admissible evidence in any court of law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that the law already prohibits recording of court or tribunal proceedings. The Bench underscored that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the principle of open and public trials ensures transparency and public confidence in the justice system, but those observations do not imply that proceedings may be recorded and produced as evidence elsewhere.
Clarifying this position, Chief Justice Chandrashekhar stated that the petitioner had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s observations, adding that “a litigant is not permitted to use any record of court proceedings as evidence. There exists a clear prohibition against recording such proceedings, much less using them in a court of law.”
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that audio-video recordings of MERC hearings would expose procedural inconsistencies. It held that such claims were contrary to established legal principles, remarking that the PIL appeared to be motivated by personal interest rather than genuine public concern.
Describing the plea as a “private interest litigation” filed for publicity, the Bench deprecated the misuse of the PIL mechanism, stating that such actions amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Consequently, the Bench dismissed the petition filed by businessman and activist Kamlakar Shenoy, who had challenged MERC’s September 4, 2018, resolution prohibiting audio-video recordings of its proceedings. Shenoy had alleged procedural lapses in MERC hearings and contended that recordings were necessary to highlight such flaws. However, the Court categorically held that recordings of tribunal or court proceedings cannot, under any circumstance, be used as evidence in a court of law.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
