requirements involved in such an undertaking. It is apparent that the Delhi High Court is actively engaged in addressing the logistical and infrastructural challenges associated with expanding this initiative. Given the phased implementation and the ongoing deliberations within the Delhi High Court’s committees, judicial intervention to mandate specific actions or timelines would be both premature and inappropriate. Thus, reliefs (a), (b), and (e), for phased implementation of live streaming cannot be granted as it is a decision that is founded in logistical viability and resource management, which the Court must respect. The existing infrastructure and the gradual expansion plans are based on practical assessments by the High Court’s technical committees. Prematurely extending these services without adequate preparation may compromise the quality and security of judicial proceedings. The relief (f) which is a suggestion to issue directions to the administrative side of the court to expedite the live streaming process is unnecessary as the High Court is already committed to enhancing transparency through measured steps. Imposing rigid timelines without regard to technical challenges and resource allocation would not be prudent. 15. Moreover, the judicial mechanism is not the appropriate forum for the Petitioner to suggest operational methodologies or to influence administrative decisions related to the court’s procedural adaptations. Therefore, considering the substantial progress already made and the ongoing efforts to refine and expand live streaming capabilities, the Court finds no grounds to issue the directions sought by the Petitioner. The matters pertaining to the technical execution of administrative policies of live streaming are best handled by the designated judicial and technical committees of the High Court, which are equipped to address these issues in
