Supreme Court of India Paves Way for Live Streaming of Court Proceedings in Cases of National Importance

Historic Judgment Upholds Public’s Right to Access Justice Virtually, Proposes Comprehensive Guidelines for Live Streaming to Enhance Transparency and Open Justice

In a landmark decision dated September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of India, through a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, unanimously held that live streaming of court proceedings of constitutional and national importance is constitutionally permissible and desirable. This judgment fundamentally strengthens the principle of open justice and the public’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a) and access to justice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The case arose from petitions by Swapnil Tripathi and others seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings involving issues impacting the public at large should be live streamed for easy public access. The Court recognized that while court hearings are generally open to the public, logistical and infrastructural constraints prevent many interested citizens, litigants, and legal professionals from attending in person. Live streaming was identified as a technological solution to overcome these barriers, thereby expanding the courtroom’s reach beyond its physical confines.

The Court emphasized that the principle of open courts is an ingrained feature of the Indian legal system, as encapsulated in Article 145(4) of the Constitution, Section 153B of the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandate courts to be open to the public unless justice requires otherwise. Citing the seminal nine-judge Bench judgment in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Court reiterated that “publicity is the very soul of justice” and that open trials are essential to maintain public confidence and serve as a check on judicial arbitrariness.

Justice Dr. Chandrachud’s detailed opinion traced the historical and doctrinal foundations of open justice, referencing Jeremy Bentham’s proposition that judicial proceedings should be conducted with the “utmost degree of publicity possible.” The Court drew upon comparative jurisprudence from countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, and others, many of which have embraced live audio-visual broadcasting of court proceedings, especially in their apex courts.

Recognizing the potential of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to enhance transparency, the Court noted the extensive digitization efforts under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project and the widespread internet penetration in India. Live streaming would allow litigants, journalists, law students, and the wider public to witness proceedings in real time, thereby demystifying judicial processes, reducing misinformation, and fostering legal education.

However, the Court also stressed the need for a carefully calibrated regulatory framework to safeguard the dignity and majesty of the Court and to protect the privacy and confidentiality interests of litigants and witnesses. It underscored that certain categories of cases, such as matrimonial disputes, sexual assault matters, and cases involving juveniles, should be excluded from live streaming. Further, the presiding judge would retain absolute discretion to prohibit or suspend live streaming in specific cases if it is found to prejudice the administration of justice.

The Court accepted the comprehensive guidelines proposed by the Attorney General of India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, which include:

- Initiation of a pilot project for live streaming in Court No.1 for Constitution Bench cases of national importance;

- Requirement of prior written consent from all parties involved, with the Court empowered to decide in case of dissent;

- Technical specifications limiting camera focus to judges and advocates without revealing confidential materials;

- A minimum broadcast delay of around two to ten minutes to allow for censorship of sensitive content;

- Establishment of designated viewing areas within the Court premises equipped with appropriate infrastructure;

- Retention of copyright by the Supreme Court with strict prohibitions on unauthorized reproduction or commercial use;

- Introduction of case management techniques to ensure orderly and time-bound arguments.

The Court further directed that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, be amended expeditiously to incorporate these regulatory provisions and that the live streaming project be implemented in a phased and structured manner.

This judgment marks a significant stride toward digitizing justice delivery in India and aligns the country with global best practices, reinforcing the constitutional mandate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It is expected to usher in greater transparency, public engagement, and accountability in the judicial system.

Statutory provisions

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Article 129, Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India, Section 153B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Indian Copyright Act, 1957, Information Technology Act, 2000, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1248427