Disposed¶12

Raj Vikram Singh v. Honble Registrar General Honble High Court Judicature Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2025WPIL/268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

live streaming of court proceedings; writ of mandamus; PIL maintainability; Article 226 Constitution of India; petitioner in person; Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court proceedings dated 13.09.2022; Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India 2018 (10) SCC 639; digital media; transparency; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; disposed without relief; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:17270-DB; order dated 26.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petition discloses no justiciable cause for interference under Article 226: the petitioner has made no effort whatsoever on the administrative side to find out the status, nor is there any opinion of wide import giving rise to such a cause. ¶11

Raj Vikram Singh Vs Honble Registrar General… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the opposite parties to commence live-streaming of court proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court proceedings dated 13.09.2022. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Efforts on the administrative side are ongoing to link court proceedings, particularly in important matters, with the digital media, and live-streaming per any formulated scheme may be implemented once the system is adequately equipped.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court expressed the expectation that the system in place will take adequate care to implement the applicable guidelines so as to make the working conditions more transparent and user friendly.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi & Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.), Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 268 of 2025, order dated 26.3.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:17270-DB: The petitioner, appearing in person, sought a writ of mandamus directing commencement of live-streaming of court proceedings as per the Supreme Court's Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court proceedings dated 13.09.2022, citing Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India, 2018 (10) SCC 639. Although several preliminary objections to maintainability were raised, including the petitioner's own interest, the Court found that no effort had been made by the petitioner on the administrative side and that no opinion of wide import gave rise to a justiciable cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Observing that administrative efforts to link court proceedings, particularly important matters, with digital media were ongoing, and expressing hope that applicable transparency guidelines would be implemented, the Court disposed of the writ petition without granting the sought mandamus.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17270-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 268 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Vikram Singh Respondent :- Honble Registrar General Honble High Court Judicature Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Raj Vikram Singh, the petitioner (in person) and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

This writ petition, filed in public interest, prays for the relief as under :

¶8

"To issue a writ of mandamus to direct the opposite parties to start the live-streaming of the court proceeding as per the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court proceedings dated 13.09.2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as possible."

¶9

The prayer appears to have been made in the light of a decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (10) SCC 639 . Although several preliminary objections have been raised against the maintainability of the present writ petition, particularly the own interest of the petitioner as spelt out in paragraph no.12, yet this Court finds that efforts on the administrative side are on to link the court proceedings particularly in important matters with the digital media. As soon as the system is adequately equipped to carry out the objectives of the live-streaming of Court proceedings as per the formulated scheme, if any, the same may be implemented leaving no room for objection from any quarters.

¶10

From the averments made in the writ petition, we

¶11

gather that no effort whatsoever has been made by the petitioner on the administrative side to find out the status nor is there any opinion of wide import impressed upon which may have given rise to a justiciable cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being the position, we hope that the system in place will take adequate care to implement the guidelines as may be applicable to make the working conditions more transparent and user friendly.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶13

(A. K. Srivastava-I,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Mahesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Vikram Singh v. Honble Registrar General Honble High Court Judicature Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Vikram Singh v. Honble Registrar General Honble High Court Judicature Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and 2 Others

Moti Lal Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home New Delhi and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. Vs Dr. Banmali Tandan

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture and Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others Vs Smt. Hajrun Nisha and 3 Others

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Horticulture and Food Processing Lko. and Others Vs Jai Prakash Verma and Others