Live-Streamed Court Transcripts Not Admissible as Evidence: Gujarat High Court

Ahmedabad, 7th February 2025: The Gujarat High Court has ruled that transcripts derived from live-streamed court proceedings cannot be considered as evidence, as they do not hold legal validity under existing court rules. The court also recommended that videos of such proceedings should be removed from YouTube after a certain period.

The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi on February 4 while hearing a contempt petition related to ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Pvt Ltd (AM/NS India).

The contempt petition, filed by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association (GOCA), sought action against AM/NS India, its officials, and legal representatives for allegedly misleading the court by seeking an extension of an ad-interim relief. However, the bench dismissed the plea, calling it “frivolous” and “ill-motivated,” and imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner.

“This application appears to have been filed with the sole intent of mortifying the learned advocates representing the respondents and the single judges who handled the case,” the bench observed.

The petitioner’s counsel, Deepak Khosla, argued that requesting an extension of an interim order amounted to both civil and criminal contempt. To support his claim, he submitted over 250 pages of transcripts derived from the court’s live-streamed proceedings on YouTube.

Rejecting this argument, the court stated, “The transcription of live-streamed court proceedings cannot be considered an authorized, certified, or official version of court records. Such material is inadmissible as evidence and violates Gujarat High Court rules.”

The bench further asserted that the misuse of such transcripts to cast allegations on judges and senior advocates itself constitutes contempt of court.

Addressing the issue of live-streamed proceedings, the High Court suggested that such videos should be removed from YouTube after a certain period. However, it left the final decision to the discretion of the Chief Justice.

“We believe that court proceedings uploaded on YouTube should be removed after a specified duration. However, this matter is best left to the consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Justice,” the bench stated, directing the High Court registry to bring the issue to the Chief Justice’s attention.

Under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984, the bench ordered the petitioner to deposit the ₹2 lakh penalty within two weeks. The ruling sets a significant precedent on the legal validity of live-streamed court records and reinforces the importance of authorized documentation in judicial proceedings.