The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought mandatory audio and video recording of proceedings before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), ruling that such recordings cannot be used as "evidence" in any court of law.

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad affirmed that there is already a prohibition against recording court proceedings for use as evidence.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s observations that trials should be held openly in courtrooms to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence in the justice system. However, they added that the petitioner had misunderstood these principles.

“These observations by the top court seem to have been misconstrued by the petitioner, who takes the position that the impugned resolution shall not be in public interest... A litigant is not permitted to use the true record of the court proceedings and use the same as evidence. There is in fact a prohibition not to record the court proceedings much less to be used as evidence in a court of law,” stated the court.

Background:

The petitioner, businessman and activist Kamlakar Shenoy, argued that recording MERC hearings was necessary to expose serious gaps and inconsistencies in its functioning, and that such recordings could serve as evidence in other courts. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that video recordings of tribunal or court proceedings cannot be admitted as evidence.

“Certainly it is against the settled principles of law that the video recordings of the proceedings of tribunals or court cannot be used as evidence. This writ petition labelled as PIL seems to be in nature of private interest litigation. Filing of such PILs is an abuse to the process of the law and must be deprecated,” the Chief Justice observed.

The bench further remarked that the instant PIL appeared motivated by personal grievance and a desire for publicity rather than genuine public interest.

Consequently, the court rejected Shenoy’s plea, upholding MERC’s 2018 resolution that prohibits audio and video recording of its proceedings.

Order awaited.

Case Title: Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission