As first reported by Legally India on Wednesday, Calcutta high court Justice Aniruddha Bose made history as probably the first high court chamber to install a permanent video camera and a microphone on the request of advocate Deepak Khosla.
In that case, Khosla had insisted on video recording after he alleged that the opposing side’s “unending heckling and abusive verbal assault being indulged in repeatedly”.
Khosla - who has been fighting for video recording in courts for years now - had also argued that recording would ensure that all his arguments - some of which are long-winded and complex - were properly captured for the benefit of the court, and would be available for review and appeal, as well as enable a client who could not be present to find out what happened in court.
Bose’s order dated 15 July 2015 in matters CA Nos. 401 of 2013, 342 of 1998, 431 of 2012, and CP No 90 of 1983 in the liquidation of Angelo Brothers, is now available and states:
As regards prayer of Mr. Khosla for video recording of the proceeding, I have permitted such recording as there was no objection from the learned Advocates appearing for the different parties. But I make it clear that the proceedings being recorded today shall not form part of the official records of this Court as there is no Rule of the Court as yet framed permitting video recording of the proceedings before the Court. The recordings would be for the purpose of assistance of this Court, like noting of submissions of the parties in course of hearing and such recording shall not be made available to any of the parties or outsiders unless otherwise directed by this Court, and this Court shall have the power and authority to make necessary editing of the recorded version, removing any part therefrom which this Court considers it necessary to avoid any scandalous or undesirable or irrelevant matter to remain on record.
Download Download PDF here.
Comments
And most incredibly, the Judge can direct that the video recording be edited, cut, tampered with etc. All this without a hearing or giving reasons I suppose.
This is certainly not a good precedent as an order for court recordings.
Not just scandalous but even allegedly undesirable or irrelevant material can be edited out from the court recording. First, if scandalous material captured on the court record does exist, it is the duty of the court to preserve it, and not destroy it. Same goes for allegedly irrelevant or undesirable material.
Second, who decides what is irrelevant or undesirable. Editing such parts negates the whole purpose of a court recording.
Third, so we will now have a video court recording that after arbitrary and non-transparent editing will be a duly certified "unauthentic" court recording.
Those applauding Judge Aniruddha Bose should note that he has usurped the power to destroy the court record, in clear violation of his oath of judicial office.
Our judges are so incredibly creative ...
I was forced to sleep in my car for over a year. On occasion I parked it outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. I was poisoned, drugged, my ankle deliberately dislocated, etc. I continue to be poisoned.
BTW, where did you get this info about me?
http://barandbench.com/law-school-insights-faculty-special-who-has-best-faculty/