In a shot in the arm for judicial transparency, the Supreme Court has agreed to allow live streaming of select court proceedings. In a verdict delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, the court ruled that cases of Constitutional importance that take place in the court of the Chief Justice can be live streamed. The SC will frame rules and guidelines related to this soon.
The verdict was in response to a batch of petitions, one of which was filed by Indira Jaising had sought live streaming of cases of national and constitutional importance. Another plea was filed by Swapnil Tripathi. Attorney General KK Venugopal had proposed a set of guidelines after hearing which the court had reserved its judgment on August 24.
The bench said, “Indisputably, open trials and access to the public during hearing of cases before the Court is an accepted proposition.” It also added, “Indubitably, live streaming of Court proceedings has the potential of throwing up an option to the public to witness live court proceedings which they otherwise could not have due to logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions of Courts; and would also provide them with a more direct sense of what has transpired.”
On the subject of maintaining confidentiality, the court noted, “Indeed, consultation with the Hon‟ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts may become essential for framing of rules for live streaming of Court proceedings so as to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the Court is preserved, and, at the same time, address the concerns of privacy and confidentiality of the litigants or witnesses, matters relating to business confidentiality in commercial disputes including prohibition or restriction of access of proceedings or trials stipulated by the Central or State legislations, and, in some cases to preserve the larger public interest owing to the sensitivity of the case having potential to spring law and order situation or social unrest. These are matters which may require closer scrutiny.”
The entire judgment may be read here: