2024 (7) TMI 485 - HC - Companies Law

Delhi HC directs NCLAT Chairperson to examine viability of recording proceedings before NCLT benches and NCLAT

The Delhi HC disposed of a petition seeking directions for recording proceedings before NCLT benches and NCLAT. The court requested the NCLAT Chairperson ... Recordal of tribunal proceedings - live-streaming and recording of judicial proceedings - provision of transcripts and certified recordings - administrative competence of tribunals to implement procedural reforms - judicial restraint in issuing systemic directions against tribunals - rejection of overbroad writ prayersRecordal of tribunal proceedings - live-streaming and recording of judicial proceedings - provision of transcripts and certified recordings - administrative competence of tribunals to implement procedural reforms - Writ petition to be treated as a representation to the Chairperson, NCLAT, for examination of viability of directions relating to recording, preservation and dissemination of NCLT/NCLAT proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court declined to issue systemic directions itself and instead treated the writ petition as a representation to be placed before the Hon'ble Chairperson, NCLAT, for consideration. The Court observed that decisions on recording, generation of transcripts, storage, retention, live-streaming and related technical and manpower requirements would impact multiple NCLT benches and the NCLAT and therefore require inputs from Presidents of various NCLT benches and administrative decision-making by the competent authority. The Court noted practical considerations such as deployment of trained manpower, technical equipment, server location and storage facilities, and that specific case-directed directions may be issued by the concerned NCLT bench where necessary. The petitioner was granted liberty to place the petition before the Chairperson, and the Chairperson was requested to examine the viability of the reliefs sought concerning recordal of proceedings. [Paras 5, 6, 11, 12]Petition treated as a representation to the Hon'ble Chairperson, NCLAT, who is requested to examine the viability of the directions sought regarding recording, preservation and dissemination of NCLT/NCLAT proceedings; liberty granted to petitioner to place the petition before the Chairperson.Rejection of overbroad writ prayers - judicial restraint in issuing systemic directions against tribunals - Prayers seeking directions on manner of reserving, dictating and authoring judgments (clauses vii to xiii) are not sustainable and are rejected. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the reliefs in prayer clauses (vii) to (xiii), which concern the manner in which judgments should be reserved, authored and dictated, go beyond the core issue raised concerning recordal of proceedings and therefore do not merit consideration. On that basis the Court rejected those specific prayers as overbroad and outside the scope of the petition's main thrust. [Paras 8]Prayers in clauses (vii) to (xiii) are rejected as going beyond the core issue and not warranting consideration.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by treating it as a representation to the Hon'ble Chairperson, NCLAT, for examination of the viability of directions relating to recording, live-streaming, storage, retention and provision of transcripts/recordings of NCLT/NCLAT proceedings; the petitioner has liberty to place the petition before the Chairperson. Prayer clauses (vii) to (xiii) are rejected. The petition is disposed of and the pending application stands closed. Issues:Seeking directions for proceedings before NCLT and NCLAT to be recorded and transparent.Analysis:The writ petition primarily sought directions for proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to be recorded to enhance transparency and decision-making robustness. The petitioner's counsel argued that this measure would ensure transparency in the decision-making process. The prayers in the writ petition included challenging the validity of Rule 45(6) of the NCLT Rules, seeking live-streaming of proceedings, activation of recording features, provision of recordings and transcripts to interested parties, and adherence to procedural requirements for judgments. The representation made to the President of NCLT was pending consideration, indicating ongoing efforts to address the issues raised.The High Court acknowledged the potential impact of any decision on all NCLT benches and the NCLAT, suggesting that the writ petition should be treated as a representation to be handled by the Chairperson of NCLAT. This approach was deemed necessary to gather input from various NCLT bench Presidents on the feasibility of generating transcripts and establishing storage facilities. Considerations included manpower deployment, technical equipment, and server locations, with specific directions potentially issued by individual NCLT benches as needed. The Court noted that rules for Video Conferencing (VC) proceedings were already in place, aligning with broader efforts to streamline procedural aspects.While the Court recognized the importance of recording proceedings, it found the additional prayer clauses (vii) to (xiii) regarding judgment reservation and authorship to be beyond the core issue of recording transparency. Consequently, these prayers were rejected. Respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition based on territorial jurisdiction and authority to file the action, but the Court deferred this aspect due to the representation approach. The petitioner was granted liberty to present the matter to the NCLAT Chairperson for further examination of the directions sought. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of under these terms, with the pending application closed.