Should Court Proceedings Get Live Telecasted?

The covid-19 pandemic has changed the face of the whole country and the guise of the Indian Judiciary. As lockdown was imposed all over the country, a sudden urge was created to make court proceedings online. Various online portals, websites, and applications like Zoom, e-courts, and Google met were used to let the proceedings move forward with no obstruction. However, in nexus to this, a huge demand to live telecast court proceedings has grown all over the country. The right to access Justice is guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. India is one of the only few democratic countries which do not live telecast the court proceedings. India stands alone in this category. Earlier to a pandemic, the Court’s proceeding used to go in physical mode, where lawyers, judges, court staff, parties of the case used to attend the courts physically. Then, it was accessible to the general public. After the pandemic, courts adopted technology for the hearings. The hearings were restricted only to advocates and judges, while the general public could not witness the proceedings. Therefore, it indirectly infringes the right to Justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Swapnil Tripathy v. Supreme Court, it was held that “In conclusion, we hold that the cause brought before this Court by the protagonists in the larger public interest, deserves acceptance to uphold the constitutional rights of public and the litigants, in particular. In recognizing that court proceedings ought to be live-streamed, this Court is mindful of and has strived to balance the various interests regarding the administration of Justice, including open Justice, dignity, and privacy of the participants to the proceedings and the majesty and decorum of the Courts.”. The Court also added that “sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming as an extension of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface between court hearings with virtual reality will result in the dissemination of information in the widest possible sense, imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process”. It was highlighted that “live streaming of court proceedings are an integral part of the right to access to justice under Article 21 of Indian Constitution”. Matrimonial cases and cases which intervene with the maintenance of national security would be excluded from live telecasting. Justice DY Chandrachud opined that “Litigants depend on the information provided by lawyers about what has transpired during hearings… when the description of cases is accurate and comprehensive, it serves the course of open Justice. However, if a report on a judicial hearing is inaccurate, it impedes the public’s right to know.”. The Supreme Court can retain the copyright of the broadcasted content of the case and the final say on the coverage and usage of the proceedings. Reproduction, re-broadcasting, transmission, publication, republication, copying, storage of the original broadcast of court proceedings should be prohibited.

Pandemic is not the only reason to make court proceedings go online. Back in 2014, a matrimonial case was dealt with online because the parties of the case were not in the jurisdiction of the Court. In the case of Santini v. Vijay Venkatesh, Justice Deepak Mishra and Justice AM Khanwilkar had a view against video conferencing as the hackers would be misusing the recording. But, Justice Chandrachud had a view in favor of video conferencing. In 2020, when the pandemic was on the peaks, the video conferencing option came to the rescue for the Indian litigants. In the same way, Supreme Court is now in favor of live-streaming the court proceeding to let citizens avail their rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. A demand for preserving documentation of videos and saving the audio transcriptions of court proceedings was blowing fire all over the country.

The Supreme Court of India is considered one of the most transparent and fairest courts in the world. But still, the Court had not maintained a public record of its proceedings. Publishing court proceeding is an aspect of Article 129 of the Indian Constitution. In countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, England, and China, the Court proceedings for the appropriate cases are live telecasted. Court recording can change the face of the Indian Judiciary and improve its standards. The case of Ayodhya, Aadhar, Section 377, NRC, Adultery, and Triple Talaq changed many people’s lives. If these cases had gone for live telecasting or live-streaming, the citizens would have understood the real essence of the verdicts.

The objectives of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and all other subordinate Court to adopt live Telecast of the proceedings are:

1. To make Justice transparent.
2. To boost faith in Indian citizens towards the Indian Judiciary.
3. To reduce cost and to adopt smart Judiciary.
4. To eradicate corruption and to arrest irregularities involving the Judiciary.
5. To help people in legal research and to help law aspiring people to gain knowledge in the field with the help of practicality.

On an experimental basis, Gujarat held its court proceeding live on YouTube. Its continuity would be deiced based on the response of the trial.

A PIL has been filed in Allahabad High Court by legal journalists, researchers, and law students seeking live streaming of court proceedings.

Live streaming or live telecasting court proceedings and making them accessible to the public have both advantages and disadvantages.

ADVANTAGES OF LIVE STREAMING OR LIVE TELECASTING COURT PROCEEDINGS:

1. The litigant or the disputant can witness their advocate’s presentation of the case and access it.
2. The litigants need not travel a long distance. Just attending the hearings will not be necessary. This will save the time of the concerned parties of the case.
3. India is facing concerns in letting citizens avail fairness in judgments. So, live telecasting of court proceedings will help Indian Judiciary to be more transparent while delivering judgments.
4. Advocates can avoid unnecessary interruptions adjournments.
5. Live telecasting of court proceedings will help law students, legal researchers, and journalists to enhance their knowledge. The practical implication of legal provisions and remedies will be witnessed by law students, which will help them build their careers. Law students across the nation are the future spine of the Indian Judiciary will have access to all judgments and proceedings in a click. Live telecasting or streaming court proceedings helps them understand the cases more clearly and helps them bring changes in the concerned aspects.
6. Concealment or impugning of actual judgments or order or stays can be avoided.
7. Most PILs filed for Right to Information in seeking live telecasting court proceedings. India is a democratic country, and court proceedings should be open to the public. This can avoid public cry alleging the Court for bad judgments.
8. Many people claim that they have lost hope in the Indian Judiciary. So, they opt for outside court settlement than choosing fair court proceedings. This results in corruption indirectly. Making court proceedings accessible to all increases hope and trust in citizens towards the Judiciary.
9. The crime proven in one Court is not very evident when the accused appeals for the next higher Court. The same case will be entirely new and will be an entirely new beginning of the case where the questioning and proving of the fault shall be done all over again. When there are recordings of the last session, the appeal filed can end soon with more reliability. Instead of beginning the case freshly, the case can be begun from the old point. This saves a lot of time for the Judiciary.

DISADVANTAGES OF LIVE STREAMING OR LIVE TELECASTING COURT PROCEEDINGS:

1. Privacy of Judges, Advocates, and parties involved would be revealed in case the proceedings were live telecasting.
2. Litigants from rural areas of the country face difficulty accessing the facility of live telecasting court proceedings.
3. Embarrassing questions raised by the bench to the counselor may make them feel uncomfortable. Even they were proven to be innocent, the videos of their embarrassing moment can make them feel awkward in the future.
4. Through live telecasting of court proceedings, the identity of the victim or the said accused cannot be hidden. Either of them or both will face accusations by society, which strongly believes that anyone dragged into a court case has done something wrong.
5. Few claim that live-telecasting speeds up judgment delivery as they believe it is due to corruption. But the delay in judgment is due to loopholes in the legal provision. So, live telecasting cannot help in the fastening of judgment delivery.