Live streaming of Court Proceedings

Disha Agrawal | ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad | 15th June 2020

Swapnil Tripathi V. Supreme Court of India

Introduction

This is a case where a fourth year law student filed a writ petition in Supreme Court to broadcast the proceeding of cases before the Supreme Court of Constitutional and National importance, in the interest of public specifically law students and intern. Along with this petition, their where other petitions which was filed to allow the live streaming of court proceeding representing the public interest. The court upheld the plea in the favour of students, but with certain guidelines that need to be followed in the case.

Facts 

Swapnil Tripathi, fourth year student of National Law University, Jodhpur invoked a writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court through Article 32 to demand live streaming of case proceedingof Constitutional and National importance. Apart from him two others file petition. One was filed by the senior Advocate Indira Jaising who suggested for the video conferencing of the court proceeding and to put certain guideline to prevent misuse and illegally broadcasted. Another petition was filed by an NGO named Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change for video recording of the proceeding and shall be uploaded in the official website.

Swapnil, the first petitioner who was interning under advocate Rishabh Sancheti, was aggrieved that interns were not allowed to enter the court during miscellaneous days i.e., Mondays and Fridays, on these days only Public Interested Litigation were listed by the court. And not only had this, even being not miscellaneous days they weren’t able to attend the proceeding because of over-crowded premises. 

The petitioner contended that, not allowing interns or law student and other people from attending the court proceeding in very important case is violating their Article 14. The primary contention of the petitionary was, live streaming of the proceeding would guarantee equal justice and it would also facilitate people to know about importance case without leaving their work to attend the proceeding and which will increase the productivity of the people. Further, petitioner came up with the certain guidelines for live streaming of proceeding in order to avoid unnecessary misuse of the same and also avoid political and social drama in certain exceptional case. According to need of hour for the live streaming of the court proceeding, court allowed to entertain all the three petition for the same.

Issues Involved

Judgement

Majority of Judgment was held on behalf of khanwilkar J. and CJI Deepak Mishra. It was held that there will be live streaming for the court proceeding except cases where there is need to maintain privacy and where proceeding had to be done in camera and closed premises. Further, court provided a set of guideline which should govern the discretion of the court on when such broadcast should be used.The court set out the importance and need to balance the right to access the justice with the dignity of the court and privacy of the party involved in the case. 

Analysis

The court observed the unanimity among the petitioner regarding the live streaming of the court proceeding , if not in all at least for cases of Constitutional and National importance, which will impact public at large. The court requested Attorney General for India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal to compare the suggestion provided by both he side i.e., by him and the petitioner and submit a comprehensive framework regarding the relief claimed by the petitioner. The court provided the further guidelines:

The court noted the Article 21 which set out the right to access the justice and this will be worth only when the public will get the access of the proceedings, which will be possible through making them watch recorded/live court proceeding. Court also remarked that it is State who has the responsibility to aware public about the law of India and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives right to know and receive information to the citizen of India. The court refers to the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manubhai^[1] and Mohd. Shahabuddin V. State of Bihar^[2], here in both cases the court held that there is need of open court rooms  to spread the information. 

Court also mention the various reason for live streaming of court proceeding which will be for the betterment of the public. Firstly, the public will be aware of the court proceedings especially those who will be affected by those decisions, which will help the system to maintain the law because awareness is only the main lacuna between our legal system and public. Secondly, the public will get the first-hand knowledge about important cases, which will reduce spread of second hand narratives from media. Thirdly, it will serve the purpose of education, especially to the future of legal system i.e., law students and interns.  Further it will also reduce the physical presence of person which is currently acting as barrier in court rooms.

Conclusion

The court allowed the live streaming of the court proceeding which is subjected to circumstance i.e., keeping in mind the privacy of the litigating party and the dignity of the court. So, the decorum of the court is not compromised in any way.  And moreover, there is also a need of the hour to take this step by our legal system. Because if we say our country is lacking to uplift any sector/ class of the community , so it is not that state who is lacking it is the people of that community who is lacking, who is still not aware of their right provided to them in Constitution of India and in other Special law. So, there is a need to fill that lacuna of awareness, which is existing between the legal system and public. 

As we can refer to the current situation of COVID-19, wherein few places hearings are being conducted virtually. It means judiciary has to look forward to the virtual set up for court proceeding. Because there are cases for which even delay also can not stand as an excuse. So this judgement has given a wide scope to the legal system to improve its area where it is lacking and can be more efficient to provide the public a way to access justice.

^[1] 1992 (3) SCR 595

^[2] 2010 4 SCC 653