NEWS HIGHLIGHTS
Theme : Judiciary
GS - 2
-
Live-streaming must be introduced as a pilot project in Chief-Justice of India’s (CJI’s) court, and only in Constitution Bench cases.The success of this project will determine whether or not live streaming should be introduced in all courts i.e., the Supreme Court and in courts pan-India.
-
De-congestion of courts and improved physical access to courts for litigants who have to otherwise travel long distances to come to the SC were cited by the Attorney general (AG) in support of his recommendation.
TABLE OF CONTENT
- Context
- When did Live Streaming begin?
- How is this a relevant decision?
- Concerns related to the decision
- Recommendations by Attorney General of India
- Other Countries
- Road Ahead
Context: Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) in a full court decided to live stream its proceedings in crucial Constitution Bench cases.
When did Live Streaming begin?
-
The decision comes nearly four years after a plea was made in the interest of transparency.
-
The first steps towards the decision were taken in 2018.
-
A three-judge Bench agreed to hear a public interest litigation seeking live streaming of judicial proceedings on matters of constitutional and national importance.
-
On August 26 2022, on the day of former Chief Justice of India (CJI)’s retirement, the Supreme Court streamed its proceedings live.
How is this a relevant decision?
-
Fundamental right of access to justice: This will be in consonance with the principle of open court established under Article 145(4), and in furtherance of fundamental right of access to justice.
-
Safeguarding Public Interest: The historical cases like on the entry of women in Sabarimala temple, on constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme or on the legality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code etc. are public interest issues, Such issues in future will be available for all to watch now.
-
Multi-pronged Benefits: Access to information for journalists, increased transparency, ensuring the right to access to justice as geographical locations will no longer be an issue, building the right perception, fostering public confidence and educating common people on how the judiciary functions are important benefits of live-streaming of court proceedings.
-
Improved Accuracy: It will do away with the menace of fake news and the need to avoid multiple versions or wrong projections of facts. Sometimes positive systemic corrections have been made possible due to the broadcast of court proceedings.
-
Promotes Gender Respect: Judicial interactions at oral argument are highly gendered, with women being interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates. Such incidences have reduced after live streaming, a study suggests.
Concerns related to the decision:
-
Lack of Infrastructure: The lack of technical infrastructure, internet connectivity in particular, is a major concern and the technical glitches can make it worse.
-
Disinformation: Video clips of proceedings from Indian courts are already on YouTube and other social media platforms with sensational titles and little context, such as “HIGH COURT super angry on army officers”. There are fears that irresponsible or motivated use of content could spread disinformation among the public.
-
Security Related Concerns: Lack of comprehensive guidelines might lead to the misuse of live access or there are chances of it getting hacked in absence of proper cybersecurity.
-
Exclusions: The matters with a privacy dimension, such as family matters or criminal matters, or matters with legal procedural intricacies etc. are left out of the scope.
Recommendations by Attorney General of India:
-
Live-streaming must be introduced as a pilot project in Chief-Justice of India’s (CJI’s) court, and only in Constitution Bench cases.The success of this project will determine whether or not live streaming should be introduced in all courts i.e., the Supreme Court and in courts pan-India.
-
De-congestion of courts and improved physical access to courts for litigants who have to otherwise travel long distances to come to the SC were cited by the Attorney general (AG) in support of his recommendation.
-
A set of guidelines suggested by the A-G was approved by the SC. However, the A-G suggested that the court must retain the to withhold broadcasting, and 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 to the administration of justice, and
-
Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion and provoke enmity among communities.
-
Other Countries:
-
Australia: Live or delayed broadcasting is allowed but the practices and norms differ across courts.
-
Brazil: Since 2002, live video and audio broadcast of court proceedings, including the deliberations and voting process undertaken by the judges in court, is allowed.
-
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.
-
South Africa: Since 2017, the Supreme Court of South Africa has allowed the media to broadcast court proceedings in criminal matters, as an extension of the right to freedom of expression.
Road Ahead:
-
The agreements with broadcasters should be on a non-commercial basis. No one should profit from the arrangement.
-
A set of guidelines must be framed to ensure that the video titles and description are not misleading and convey accurate information only.
FAQs:
Q1 What were the important recommendations of the Attorney General of India?
Answer- Live-streaming must be introduced as a pilot project in Chief-Justice of India’s (CJI’s) court, and only in Constitution Bench cases.
De-congestion of courts and improved physical access to courts for litigants who have to otherwise travel long distances to come to the SC were cited by the Attorney general (AG) in support of his recommendation.
Q2 What is the situation in South Africa?
Answer- Since 2017, the Supreme Court of South Africa has allowed the media to broadcast court proceedings in criminal matters, as an extension of the right to freedom of expression.