[dropcap]A[/dropcap] three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising the Chief Justice Dipak Misra, as well as Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud favoured the cause of live-streaming of the apex court's proceedings, with the plea filed by the petitioner-in-person, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising. The bench noted such measures as being "the need the hour" in lieu of transparency, and insisted on prompt addressal of the same..Attorney General, K K Venugopal, supported the proposition in his individual capacity as well as on behalf of the Union of India, calling it a way to bring forth discipline as well as availing access to court proceedings to people from rural areas. Petitioner-in-person Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that live-streaming, apart from acting as the Court's official audiovisual records, would also dispel any chances of misreporting. Further, she submitted that such streaming should be subject to court-determined safeguards to ensure that the proceedings are not unethically utilised for commercial purposes.. In light of the submissions advanced by both sides, the Court directed the parties to forward suggestions in lieu of the aforementioned to the Attorney General, so that he may devise holistic guidelines for live streaming of the Court's proceedings..The writ petition filed in Public Interest under Article 32 in January by Indira Jaising, called for the live-streaming and/or video recording of Supreme Court cases of "national importance that impact the public at large". It aimed to further the right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as well as advance the principle of open courts and access to justice as protected under Article 21 to inspire confidence in the judiciary, avoid misinformation and disinformation of the Supreme Court proceedings, and enable citizens who are unable to be present in the Court due to social, economic, physical or other constraints but are impacted by its decisions. .The writ petition filed in Public Interest under Article 32 in January by Indira Jaising, called for the live-streaming and/or video recording of Supreme Court cases of "national importance that impact the public at large". It aimed to further the right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as well as advance the principle of open courts and access to justice as protected under Article 21 to inspire confidence in the judiciary, avoid misinformation and disinformation of the Supreme Court proceedings, and enable citizens who are unable to be present in the Court due to social, economic, physical or other constraints but are impacted by its decisions.The petition said:."The Petitioner submits that a cardinal principle of law is that justice is not only to be done in public but also should be seen to be done and the best possible manner to achieve this goal is to live stream the proceedings so that arguments of all Counsels are heard and recorded, and the concerns of the judges as reflected in the interaction between the Counsels and the Court, are recorded accurately and without distortions.".Jaising petitioned that proceedings from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have been webcasted and telecasted since 2003 and 2004 respectively. This helped in creating awareness amongst the citizens about the work of their democratically elected representatives, as well as enhance transparency in the Parliamentary processes. She claimed no rational reason opposing as to why the same should not be done for cases of constitutional and national importance that impact the public at large..The petition cited guidelines and provisions of Courts across the world that permit live streaming and video recording of their proceedings, including those in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. .The petition cited guidelines and provisions of Courts across the world that permit live streaming and video recording of their proceedings, including those in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.It also provided judges the discretion to decide cases that should be recorded, and allowed for restrictions to be placed on recording of cases which may have privacy concerns, such as family law matters, or witness testimonies in criminal matters. Apart from being of significant archival value, the recordings will also serve as valuable educational resources..The petition prayed for the live-streaming and video recording of cases such as the recently concluded Aadhaar hearing as well as other cases assigned to constitutional benches such as the matter pertaining to the right of women to enter the Sabrimala Temple in Kerala, the issue of de-criminalisation of Section 377 of IPC, as well as the case challenging the adultery provision in the IPC, Section 497 as being violative of Article 14 among various others..They key points of the case hearing are as follows:.The Attorney General of India, K K Venugopal, went beyond the relief sought by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising in her petition and agreed that live streaming should not only be in the cases of national importance, but rather submitted that it should be done for all cases in the Supreme Court.Along with recording the proceedings, AG Venugopal submitted that it will also make it easy for litigants in different parts of the country to observe their matters.Justice D Y Chandrachud agreed to the proposal of live streaming of court proceedings and stated that once the principle of open courts and access to justice has been accepted in our Constitution, this is simply an extension of that principle and will lead to a virtual open court.The Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra suggested that matrimonial matters as a category could be excluded, and privacy of the individuals in matters will be taken into consideration, and disallowing of any matter would be at the discretion of the court.The Attorney General K K Venugopal even suggested the creation of a media room with a television screen for the interns and others to view the matters without having to crowd the courts and the corridors.The Attorney General and the judges were in agreement that recording the proceedings will require laying down procedures and a code of conduct for the lawyers and others in the courtroom.The Supreme Court Bench ordered the petitioners to submit a list of guidelines, and the Attorney General to look into the administrative and technological aspects of it.
