Live-streaming of Supreme Court proceedings

Recently, the Supreme Court decided to live stream its proceedings in crucial Constitution Bench cases that will be heard from September 27. This decision came nearly four years after a plea was made in the interest of transparency.

Background –

• This year, on August 26, on the day of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana’s retirement, the Supreme Court streamed its proceedings live.
• But, in the Swapnil Tripathi judgment, in September 2018, the SC had cleared the deck for live streaming of cases of national and constitutional importance.
  • In 20018, a three-judge Bench agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking live streaming of judicial proceedings.
  • The court had issued notice to the then Attorney General of India K K Venugopal, seeking his views on the issue.
  • After receiving the recommendation, the Supreme Court approved a set of guidelines, which included allowing transcripts and archiving the proceedings.

Recommended by Attorney General –

• Attorney General had recommended introducing live streaming as a pilot project in Court No.1, which is the CJI’s court, and only in Constitution Bench cases.
• However, the A-G suggested that the court must retain the power to withhold broadcasting, and to also not permit it in cases involving —
  • Matrimonial matters,
  • Matters involving interests of juveniles or the protection and safety of the private life of the young offenders,
  • Matters of National security —
    • • To ensure that victims, witnesses or defendants can depose truthfully and without any fear.
        • Special protection must be given to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
        • It may provide for face distortion of the witness if she/he consents to the broadcast anonymously,
      • To protect confidential or sensitive information, including all matters relating to sexual assault and rape,
      • Matters where publicity would be antithetical (contrary) to the administration of justice, and
      • Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion and provoke enmity among communities.

Live streaming in High Courts –

• Following the SC’s decision, Gujarat High Court began live streaming its proceedings in July 2021.
• Currently, the Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Patna High Courts live stream their proceedings.

What happens elsewhere?

• USA —
  • While the US Supreme Court has rejected pleas for broadcast of its proceedings, it has since 1955 allowed audio recording and transcripts of oral arguments.
• Australia —
  • Live or delayed broadcasting is allowed but the practices and norms differ across courts.
• Canada —
  • Proceedings are broadcast live on Cable Parliamentary Affairs Channel, accompanied by explanations of each case and the overall processes and powers of the court.
• United Kingdom —
  • In 2005, the law was amended to remove contempt of court charges for recording proceedings of the Supreme Court.
  • Proceedings are broadcast live with a one-minute delay on the court’s website, but coverage can be withdrawn in sensitive appeals.

Benefits –

• Improves transparency —
  • Broadcasting court proceedings is a step in the direction of transparency and greater access to the justice system.
• Improves legal literacy of masses —
  • Live streaming the proceedings will not just increase legal literacy but potentially enhance the public’s continuous engagement with the Constitution and laws.
• Positive systemic corrections can be made —
  • A research paper, which studied the audio proceedings of the US Supreme Court, found that judicial interactions at oral argument are highly gendered.
    • Women were interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates.
  • Later, the gendered disruptions identified by the study was addressed.
    • Now Justices ask questions according to seniority instead of interrupting in a random way.

Concerns –

• Irresponsible use of the content —
  • Video clips of proceedings from Indian courts are already on YouTube and other social media platforms with sensational titles and little context.
  • There are fears that irresponsible use of content could spread disinformation among the public.
• Impact on the behaviours of Justices —
  • As 2018 research paper from Brazil concluded that justices behave like politicians when given free television time, they act to maximise their individual exposure.