BOMBAY HIGH COURT MAKES TRANSCRIPTION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS COMPULSORY

Introduction  

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“HC”) vide Notification No. Rule/P.1603/Notification No. 07/2025 has framed the Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court(“Rules”). Subsequently by Notification No. Rule / P.1603 / Notification No.10/2025, the HC has appointed 07^th July, 2025 as the date on which these Rules shall come into force.

These Rules shall apply to the Principal Seat at Mumbai and the Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad, as well as to courts and tribunals under the supervisory jurisdiction of the HC.

Background and Relevance

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018 10 SCC 639), adverted to the Comprehensive Guidelines for live streaming of court proceedings in the SC suggested by the then learned Attorney General for India which recommended that apart from live streaming, transcription of proceedings may also be considered to enhance accessibility and transparency. The Rules by HC now concretely adopt this vision by mandating the preparation of transcripts even in the absence of live streaming, thereby giving effect to the broader objective of making court proceedings more open, while preserving the integrity, confidentiality, and fairness of the judicial process.

Objective

The objective of these rules is to enhance transparency, accountability, and public access to court proceedings through the structured implementation of live streaming and recording within the judicial framework. The rules seek to uphold the principle of open justice while maintaining due regard for privacy, confidentiality, and the right to a fair trial.

Key Highlights

• Transcripts mandatory and live streaming not prerequisite

Notwithstanding the absence of live streaming, the preparation of transcripts remains obligatory under the applicable rules. As stipulated in Rule 5.7(ii), where proceedings are not live streamed, recordings shall nonetheless be preserved for the use of the Court and the appellate court(s), and transcripts of such recordings shall be made available to the advocate or litigant-in-person. This provision affirms that transcription is not contingent upon live streaming. Although Rule 10.1 clarifies that transcripts are ordinarily prepared upon the direction of the Court, the mandate under Rule 5.7(ii) operates independently and ensures access to the official record of proceedings. According to Rule 10.2 the transcripts may be translated into other scheduled languages. The Dedicated Control Room (DCR) is responsible for monitoring and tracking the transcription process.

Exclusions: However, the scope of transcription is subject to specific exclusions. As provided under Rule 6.3, the following shall not be transcribed: deliberations among the judges on the bench; directions issued by a judge to administrative staff; internal court communications; documents or notes handed to the judge during proceedings; personal notes made by the judge or advocates; and privileged communications, including those between clients and counsel, or among legal representatives. These exceptions safeguard the confidentiality, privilege, and decorum inherent in judicial proceedings.

• Live Streaming is conditional not absolute

Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.6 collectively establish that proceedings shall be live streamed only with the consent of the Hon’ble Judge or Judges on the Bench with unanimous consent required in multi-judge benches and that the final, non-justiciable authority to permit or restrict such streaming rests solely with the Bench, guided by the principle of openness.

Exclusions: Furthermore, Rules 5.2 and 5.3 enumerate specific categories of cases that are excluded from live streaming such as matrimonial disputes, sexual offence cases, gender-based violence, in-camera proceedings, and the recording of evidence thereby underlining that live streaming is conditional and subject to necessary safeguards to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the rights of the parties involved.

• Objection Mechanism Available

As per Rule 5.4, parties shall be informed before commencement that proceedings are being live streamed, and may raise objections at that stage before the Bench. Rule 5.5 states that objections may also be submitted at the time of institution or later, using Schedule I or Schedule II of the Rules. The final decision pertaining to the objections shall rest with the Bench.

• Recording and Storage

Pursuant to Rule 6.4 and 6.5 live streaming shall be paused during confidential exchanges, order dictation, or recess, with appropriate on-screen messages. Recordings are to be archived and may be uploaded on official platforms as directed. Access to non-uploaded recordings requires application under Schedule III of the Rules and approval by the designated officer. Archived data shall be retained for at least six months, stored in electronic devices in encrypted form with a specific hash (#) value for integrity, subject to specific directions by the Bench.

• Protection of Privacy & Data

Rule 5.8 ensures the protection of victim and witness identities in criminal cases through measures such as face masking, pixilation, and voice distortion. Rule 8.1 mandates the redaction or muting of personal data during live streaming, while Rule 8.2 permits parties to request additional redactions of sensitive information. Further, Rule 9.2 prohibits any unauthorised recording, sharing, or dissemination of court proceedings, prescribing penalties under relevant laws. Complementing this, Rule 9.3 restricts the misuse of communication or recording devices during proceedings, with any violation subject to seizure and legal action.

• Accessibility Measures

In accordance with Rule 11, dedicated live-stream viewing rooms may be established within court premises to reduce courtroom congestion. Access to these rooms will be granted to authorised individuals such as litigants, law researchers, court staff, academicians, and accredited media personnel, subject to requisite approvals. Importantly, special arrangements will be provided to ensure accessibility for differently abled persons.

Conclusion

The Rules mark a significant step towards institutionalising live streaming and recording of court proceedings, balancing transparency with privacy and procedural safeguards. Crucially, even in the absence of live streaming, the preparation of transcripts remains mandatory, thereby ensuring continued access to the official record. This underlines the Court’s commitment to accountability and the right to information, reinforcing that transparency in judicial proceedings is not solely dependent on live broadcasts but is also maintained through accurate and accessible documentation.

Takeaway

• Rules shall be effective from 7^th July 2025.
• Transcription shall be mandatory even without live streaming.
• Live streaming shall be subject to judicial discretion and not be an absolute right.
• Amongst the exclusions deliberations among judges, directions to staff, internal communications, documents or notes shared with judges, personal notes by judges or advocates, and privileged communications between clients and counsel shall be excluded from transcription.