Unless Live-streaming Sees Light Of The Day, Absence Of Records Of Oral Proceedings Would Continue To Bedevil The System: Supreme Court

Unless live-streaming and archival of court proceedings sees the light of the day the absence of records of oral proceedings would continue to bedevil the system, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud remarked in the judgment disposing Election Commission of India's petition challenging oral remarks made by Madras High Court.

The Court also noted that three years have elapsed since the decision in Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639 [ which highlighted the importance of live streaming of judicial proceedings].

The bench, also comprising Justice MR Shah noted that cases before the courts are vital sources of public information about the activities of the legislature and the executive and serves an educational purpose as well. The court becomes a platform for citizens to know how the practical application of the law impacts upon their rights, the court noted.

The Court further observed that several courts across the world, including the US Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of the UK and the International Criminal Court enable public viewership of proceedings through live streaming or other suitable open access methodology. The Gujarat High Court also recently introduced live streaming of its proceedings, in a bid to enhance public participation in the dispensation of justice, it noted.

In Swapnil Tripathi, three judge bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra held that the Court proceedings shall be live-streamed in the larger public interest. Live streaming is for cases of constitutional and national importance, barring those involving juveniles, cases of sexual assault, matrimonial issues. The court also ordered that to give full effect to the process of live-streaming, advocates addressing the Bench, and judges addressing the Bar, must use microphones while addressing the court. The live streaming would be with prior consent of all parties concerned and if there is no unanimity, the court concerned will take the decision which shall not be open to appeal. The court will have copyright over the broadcasted content. There will also be reasonable time gap between the proceedings and streaming to ensure that anything which ought not be made public can be edited.

""Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming as an extension of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface between a court hearing with virtual reality will result in the dissemination of information in the widest possible sense, imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process" the court had observed.

In October last year, the Court dodged detailed queries raised under the Right to Information Act seeking reasons for the non-implementation of live-streaming of court proceedings by giving an evasive reply that the "matter is under the consideration of the Registry". Last Month, Justice DY Chandrachud said that the e-committee of the top Court is in the process of finalizing its rules for live streaming of court proceedings.   

In the meanwhile, Gujarat High Court started live streaming of Court proceedings on YouTube from October 26, 2020. 

Also From the judgment :

Real Time Reporting Of Court Hearing In Social Media Not A Cause Of Apprehension; A Virtual Extension Of 'Open Court' : Supreme Court