|
Originally posted by :piyush sharma |
|
" |
May be you are right. But in parliament normal person can not go and see the proceedings. But in court any one can go and see it. When every thing is open then what is the reqirment of recording it. why you want government waste so much money on this issue. |
" |
Sir I am not saying that government should increase its expenses by doing official recordings. Instead there are many private channels who may be interested in doing the same. But anyways this is not the main point.
Also I do not know whether I am right or wrong but the question that puzzles me is, if the court is really an open court, then where is the problem of recording the proceedings in court in a manner that does not disturb the functioning of court?
When I am sitting in an open court and observing the proceedings, I am recording them in my memory, instead if I quietly record them electronically with my spy pen camera, where is the problem? After all both these acts of recording in memory of brain and recording electronically with a spy camera are manifestations of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. What is the "reasonable" reason to place blanket restriction on this fundamental right in this matter ? The only reason I can think of is that if I record the proceedings electronically in my spy camera, I will be able to furnish it as evidence under Evidence Act and IT Act. Who should be worried about such evidence if not the corrupt?
Hope if anyone could enlighten me with proper reason and logic behind this restriction.
