Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory audio-video recording of proceedings before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), observing that such recordings cannot be treated as evidence in any court of law.
Bench Observes PIL Filed For Publicity
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad held that the petition was “bereft of substance” and appeared to be filed out of “personal grudge” and for “publicity.”
Petitioner Challenged MERC Resolution
The PIL, filed by businessman and activist Kamlakar Shenoy, challenged MERC’s resolution dated September 4, 2018, which decided against recording its proceedings.
Shenoy claimed that MERC hearings were not conducted properly and contained “serious inconsistencies,” arguing that recordings were necessary to expose these flaws and could also serve as evidence before other courts.
MERC Opposed The Plea
Advocate Ratnakar Singh, who appeared for the MERC, opposed the petition and submitted that MERC had this arrangement of audio/ video recording of the proceedings for its internal purposes and there is no provision in the Electricity Act 2003 to have mandatory recording of the proceedings.
Court Cites Legal Restrictions On Recordings
The bench rejected Shenoy’s submissions and noted that the Supreme Court has already emphasized the importance of public trials in open courts to maintain transparency and public confidence in the justice system — but that does not imply allowing recordings of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
“The 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,” the bench said.
Recordings Cannot Be Used As Evidence
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s claim that such recordings would reveal irregularities in MERC’s functioning. “A litigant is not permitted to record the proceedings of a court or tribunal and use the same as evidence. There is, in fact, a prohibition against recording of court proceedings, much less their use as evidence in a court of law,” the bench said.
Also Watch:
Court Terms PIL A Misuse Of Judicial Process
Terming the petition a misuse of judicial process, the court added, “This writ petition labelled as a PIL seems to be in the nature of private interest litigation. Filing of such PILs is an abuse of the process of law and must be deprecated.”
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
