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 to examine the viability of the directions sought regarding recordal of proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to place the petition before the NCLAT Chairperson for consideration. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

---

---

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.

---