Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Deepak Khosla v Union of India (DB)

Deepak Khosla v Union of India (DB)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by barandbench
Deepak Khosla v Union of India (DB)
Deepak Khosla v Union of India (DB)

More info:

Published by: barandbench on Mar 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 WP(C) No.12787/2009 page
  Judgment Reserved on :
July, 2011
 % Judgment Pronounced on:
August, 2011
 WP(C) No. 12787/2009
 Deepak Khosla ..... PetitionerThrough: Petitioner in person.VersusUnion of India & Ors. ..... RespondentsThrough: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. for UOIMr.Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for R-2.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?Yes2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to declare that the petitioner is entitled to non-intrusively audio-record judicial proceedings that involve hisparticipation before this Court and to so record either by himself or
 WP(C) No.12787/2009 page
through his advocate on record; to issue a writ of prohibition or a writof any other nature or description to command the respondent Nos.3and 4, the Registrar General and the Registrar of this Court, not tointerfere with the act of non-intrusive audio-recording by the petitioneror his advocate on record in respect of judicial proceedings that involvethe petitioner; and to issue any further order / direction in the interestof justice, equity and in furtherance of or to secure any other objectiveor purpose as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case.2. When the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge on25.2.2011, he had passed the following order:
“This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
a declaration that the petitioner was entitled to non-intrusively audio recording of judicial proceedings inthose cases wherein the petitioner himself was aparty, he should be allowed to do so either by himselfor through an Advocate-on-record. The other prayeris that a Writ of Prohibition should be issued againstrespondents no. 3 and 4 i.e. the Registrar General andRegistrar of this Court not to interfere with the rightof the petitioner to do non-intrusivelyaudio recording.Audio/Video recording of the court proceedings infact amounts to maintaining a record of the court
 WP(C) No.12787/2009 page
proceedings. The record of the court proceedings ispresently kept in print form by typing the orders or inthe form of soft copy (plus hard copy). Typing wasearlier done on manual typewriters, now-a-days it isdone on computers. Filing itself is also done in theCourt by way of soft copy or hard copy; soft copy ine-courts and hard copy in non e-courts. The petitioneris seeking permission to record the proceedingsduring hearings of the Court in his own cases and oneof the grounds of petitioner seeking this recording is,so that the petitioner is able to revive his memory asto what transpired in the Court and to keep a track ofwhat was argued in the Court. He submits that he canuse these recordings later on to show that a point wasnot argued or a point was argued but was not dealtwith.Any kind of recording which is done in the court ofrecord of the court proceedings, if is used beforehigher forum in any judicial review mustbe authenticated recording duly authenticated by theCourt. Presently there is no procedure available inthe Court of authenticating the audio or videorecording of the court proceedings. Permittingpetitioner for recording of proceedings for his privateuse has its own dangers. We know that thetechnology of audio/video recording is advancedthese days but the technology of fabricating suchrecordings is equally advanced. Anybody can eitherdelete the relevant portion from the recording or bycreating similar frequency/pitch of voicein computer audio and video clips can be added inthe recording. Therefore any recording sought to beused for judicial review before any forum etc. cannotbe permitted by the Court unless there is a setprocedure for authentication of the recording and acopy of the recording is preserved in the Court for

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->