The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition seeking to mandate video (or audio-visual) recording of hearings before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). The court held that while transparency is desirable, there is no inherent fundamental right of the public to have every regulatory hearing recorded or telecast.
In its reasoning, the court clarified that regulatory bodies such as MERC are quasi-judicial in nature and although they exercise adjudicatory functions under the Electricity Act, the decision to record proceedings cannot be converted into a universal requirement in absence of statutory mandate or compelling circumstances. The petition argued that recording would promote openness and accountability, but the bench observed that the petition failed to show how a blanket mechanism of video-recording would serve a specific interest or address a particular problem of transparency or justice in MERC’s functioning.
The court added that video-recordings or live telecasts are not a substitute for reasoned orders, public hearings, and stakeholder opportunity. It held that the administrative or technical decisions of a regulatory commission may sometimes require discretion, confidentiality, or considerations of commercial sensitivity; therefore, automatic recording or broadcast of every hearing could undermine process integrity or impose undue burdens. The bench emphasised that the option to record could be made on a case-by-case basis where appropriate, but cannot be imposed by generalized direction absent rule-making or legislative intervention.
By dismissing the petition, the High Court has reaffirmed the view that judicial and quasi-judicial forums must balance transparency with efficiency, discretion and process. It confirmed that claimants seeking greater openness in regulatory proceedings must show a concrete and specific need rather than rely on abstract or generalized assertions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.