Supreme Court Proceedings Ought to Be Live Streamed, Subject to Rules and Safeguards: Swapnil Tripathi

Petitioners and interventionists sought a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance be live streamed, and guidelines to decide which cases qualify (Khanwilkar J., para 1). They relied on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, the right of access to justice under Article 21 and the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) (Khanwilkar J., paras 1-3). The Court asked the Attorney General to collate all suggestions into a note on a framework, which set out guidelines (Khanwilkar J., paras 4, 11). Practice in other jurisdictions was surveyed (Khanwilkar J., para 10).

Open trials are the accepted norm, though Mirajkar recognised that justice may sometimes need hearings in camera, so a balanced regulatory framework is needed first (Khanwilkar J., paras 6-7). Live streaming would virtually expand the courtroom beyond its walls and give effect to access to justice, open justice and the right to know (Khanwilkar J., paras 9, 12). Publication of proceedings is a facet of the Court as a Court of Record under Article 129, but privacy, the dignity of the Court and sensitive cases must be respected (Khanwilkar J., para 13). The project must be phased, beginning with an intranet pilot, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 amended (Khanwilkar J., paras 14-15, 17). Cameras must focus only on the Bench and the arguing advocates (Khanwilkar J., para 16). Chandrachud J. traced open justice from Mirajkar to Olga Tellis and noted that many citizens cannot attend court because of poverty, distance and cost (Chandrachud J., paras 9-10, 13). Live streaming makes the judiciary accountable and should extend to the High Courts and district courts (Chandrachud J., paras 22-23). His model guidelines are suggestions for rules under Article 145(1) (Chandrachud J., para 26).