Live Streaming of SC Proceedings

Why in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court decided to live stream its proceedings in crucial Constitution Bench cases that will be heard from September 27. 

• The decision comes nearly four years after a plea was made in the interest of transparency.

Key Points:

Background:

• Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India (2018): The Supreme Court ruled in favour of opening up the apex court through live-streaming.
  • It held that the live streaming proceedings are part of the right to access justice under Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution
• In March 2018: The court issued notice to the Attorney General of India seeking his views on the issue.

Recommendation by Attorney General:

• AG recommended introducing live streaming as a pilot project in Court No.1, which is the CJI’s court, and only in Constitution Bench cases.
• The success of this project will determine whether or not live streaming should be introduced in all courts in the Supreme Court and in courts pan India.
• The AG suggested that the court must retain the power to withhold broadcasting, and to also not permit it in cases involving:
  • Matrimonial matters
  • Matters involving interests of juveniles
  • Matters of National security
  • Special protection must be given to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. It may provide for face distortion of the witness.
  • To protect confidential or sensitive information, including all matters relating to sexual assault and rape,
  • Matters where publicity would be antithetical to the administration of justice, and
  • Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion and provoke enmity among communities.

Live proceedings in High Courts:

• Gujarat High Court was the first high court to livestream court proceedings.
• Currently, the Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Patna High Courts live stream their proceedings.

Concerns: 

• Fears that irresponsible or motivated use of content could spread disinformation among the public.
• Justices may act to maximize their individual exposure.
• Lack of digitally trained court officials.
• Risk of privacy breach.

Significance: 

• Will ensure greater transparency and enhance public trust in the judiciary’s functioning
• Will help in de-congestion of courts
• Improve physical access for litigants and trust of people in the judiciary
• Help in legal research and training
• Encourage legal awareness
• Increase legal literacy and potentially enhance the public’s engagement with the Constitution and laws.
• directly brings citizens into conversations
• Invaluable resource for those who study and teach law.

International Example:

•  US: It has since 1955 allowed audio recording and transcripts of oral arguments.
•  Australia: Live or delayed broadcasting is allowed but the practices and norms differ across courts.
• Brazil: Since 2002, live video and audio broadcast of court proceedings is allowed.
• Canada: Proceedings are broadcast live on Cable Parliamentary Affairs Channel.
• South Africa: Since 2017, the Supreme Court of South Africa has allowed the media to broadcast court proceedings in criminal matters.
• United Kingdom: Proceedings are broadcast live with a one-minute delay on the court’s website, but coverage can be withdrawn in sensitive appeals.