The Supreme Court (SC) of India took a historical step towards ensuring judicial transparency by starting live streaming of its proceedings on September 27, 2022. Currently, the live streaming is webcast on YouTube by the National Informatics Centre. However, the SC is likely to use a dedicated platform for live streaming of the hearings, in the long term. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has also spoken in open court about the opening of a Right to Information (RTI) portal.
Background
The move towards transparency in courts started in the year 2015 when the SC had struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment because the court thought that the wisdom of appointment of judges should not be shared with a political executive. Thereafter, the court invited public opinion on how to improve the opaque collegium system of judicial appointments. This survey received over 11,500 views from the public. Consequently, the collegium started publishing its resolutions on the website.
However, four senior judges held a press conference in January 2018, and complained about the selective allocation of sensitive cases by the successive Chief Justices of India to certain benches of the SC. In 2018, a senior advocate, Indira Jaising, filed a writ petition stating that all the citizens have the right to information, and that matters of constitutional and national importance could be live streamed. Swapnil Tripathi, the then Student Chief Counsel of National Law University, Jodhpur, also filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court against bar imposed on the interns to not enter court rooms on miscellaneous days. He argued his own case along with Indira Jaising.
Both these petitions were heard by a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, and D.Y. Chandrachud. The bench held that the right to know and receive information is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, the public can witness court proceedings involving issues having an impact on the public at large. Therefore, the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, passed the ruling on the live telecast of important proceedings, except in rape cases and matrimonial disputes.
However, successive Chief Justices of India remained hesitant to implement the verdict. When the pandemic struck, the court was forced to radically change its way of functioning and had to embrace technology and introduce video-conferencing. In this way, the online system perfected over the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
First Cases Heard with Live Streaming
On the first day, three courtrooms streamed live proceedings across three five-judge benches. It involved intricate issues of constitutional and legal significance.
The Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, heard a challenge to the central law on 10 per cent quota to the economically weaker sections (EWS), which was heard in court Hall No. 1 for three hours. More than 2,38,000 viewers tuned in on YouTube to watch the EWS case.
Another five-judge bench, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heard the politically sensitive matter relating to the Maharashtra political crisis on several petitions, filed by both the factions of Shiv Sena, led by Uddhav Thackeray and the Chief Minister, Eknath Shinde. It was in court Hall No. 2 and about 4,00,000 people had accessed the proceedings.
In court Hall No. 3, Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul-headed bench heard the legal challenge to the All India Bar Examination, a post-enrolment exam for lawyers. This had a viewership of over 96,000.
Students of law and citizens, interested in keeping themselves abreast with matters of public importance, had an opportunity to watch Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Tushar Mehta, Mohan Gopal, Meenakshi Arora, and a host of senior advocates, placing their arguments in the court.
Significance of Live Streaming
Live streaming would serve as an accountability tool for checking populist statements by lawyers. It would also ensure that judges begin the proceedings of the court on time and give equal opportunity to all sides. It would also serve as an invaluable resource for those who study and teach law. The archives would be an excellent opportunity to identify and address systemic patterns that are affecting judicial functioning. Delay in the dispensation of justice has always been a matter of serious concern. Live streaming of the court proceedings would enable members of the public to know the cause of adjournments and delay. Openness and transparency would reinforce the faith of the public in the judicial system. It would also enhance the rule of law and promote better understanding of legal governance, as a part of functioning of democracy.
Following the Supreme Court, at least seven high courts—Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Patna, and Madhya Pradesh—have started telecasting proceedings live. Hopefully, rest of the high courts of India would follow the Apex Court.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.