The Kerala High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate over allegations that court proceedings were recorded without authorisation and uploaded to YouTube and other digital platforms.
The court has also imposed an interim restriction on the advocate’s participation in Kerala court proceedings through virtual mode, highlighting the importance of following rules governing the recording and online sharing of judicial proceedings.
Kerala High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate Over Unauthorised Court Videos on YouTube
The Kerala High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara over allegations that recordings of court proceedings were made without permission and subsequently uploaded to digital platforms, including YouTube.
The court has also imposed an interim restriction preventing the advocate from participating in proceedings of courts in Kerala through virtual or online mode until further orders.
How the Matter Came Before the Court
The issue came to the attention of the Kerala High Court following a report submitted by its Registry. The report raised concerns over videos of court proceedings allegedly recorded and uploaded by the advocate on his YouTube channel.
The court observed that restrictions relating to recording and sharing judicial proceedings had already been communicated. Despite this, the alleged uploads continued, prompting the court to examine whether the conduct amounted to interference with the administration of justice.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. considered the matter.
Also Read: Will India Ban Polygamy? Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Muslim Personal Law
Court Proceedings Cannot Be Recorded Without Permission
The High Court referred to Rule 3(9) of the Kerala Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules, 2025.
The provision places restrictions on recording, broadcasting, publishing, circulating or otherwise using audio or video of court proceedings without prior written permission from the court.
The restriction applies not only to the entire proceeding but also to any portion of it.
The court’s reference to these rules highlights that access to a virtual court hearing does not automatically give a person the right to record or redistribute what happens during the proceeding.
YouTube Uploads Became a Key Concern
The videos allegedly uploaded to YouTube were also examined in the proceedings. The titles and presentation of some of the videos were considered relevant because they appeared to contain commentary about the functioning of the court and its proceedings.
The High Court prima facie considered that recording proceedings without authorisation and presenting them publicly in such a manner could raise issues under the law relating to criminal contempt.
The court examined the conduct in the context of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with conduct that tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of a court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Latest Judgment on Digital or Electronic Evidence
Restriction on Virtual Court Appearance
As an interim measure, the High Court directed that the advocate should not participate in proceedings before courts in Kerala through virtual mode until further orders.
The court also directed that its order be communicated to the concerned judicial officers and authorities associated with the High Court and district judiciary.
The relevant officials dealing with court computerisation and information technology were also directed to take steps necessary for implementing the order.
Supreme Court Proceedings Also Considered
While dealing with the matter, the Kerala High Court also took note of directions and proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the unauthorised use and dissemination of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings.
The broader concern is that recordings of court hearings cannot simply be treated as ordinary online content that can be freely edited, uploaded or redistributed. Judicial proceedings are governed by specific rules, and any restrictions imposed by the court must be followed.
What This Means for Lawyers and Social Media Users
The case highlights an important distinction between watching a court proceeding and recording or distributing it.
A person who has access to an online hearing may still be prohibited from recording the proceedings. Uploading such material to YouTube, social media or other digital platforms can have legal consequences if it violates court rules or directions.
For lawyers in particular, the matter serves as a reminder that professional participation in virtual hearings comes with responsibilities relating to confidentiality, court decorum and compliance with technological rules.
The Contempt Case Is Still Pending
The High Court has not yet reached a final conclusion on the allegations. The advocate has been called upon to respond to the proceedings, and the matter has been scheduled for further hearing.
The interim restriction on virtual participation will remain in place until the court passes a further order.
The next hearing has been listed for September 7, 2026.
Why the Case Matters
The Kerala High Court’s action underlines the judiciary’s growing concern over the unauthorised recording and online distribution of court proceedings.
As virtual hearings have become an important part of the justice system, courts have increasingly relied on specific rules to regulate how digital proceedings are accessed, recorded and shared.
The case therefore carries significance beyond the individual proceedings. It reinforces the principle that participation in an online court hearing does not necessarily confer permission to record, publish or commercially or otherwise distribute the proceedings.
Any person dealing with court-related video content should therefore check the applicable court rules and obtain the required permission before recording or sharing such material.