Live streaming of court proceedings in India is seen as a “double-edged sword” because, while it promotes transparency, accountability, and public access to justice, it also poses challenges. On the positive side, live streaming allows citizens to witness the judicial process, enhancing trust and democratic engagement. However, it also raises concerns about privacy, the risk of sensationalism, and the potential for misuse of sensitive information. There is also fear that such visibility could influence the behavior of judges, lawyers, and witnesses, affecting the impartiality of court proceedings. Thus, while live streaming can enhance transparency, it must be balanced with safeguards to protect judicial integrity and privacy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
INDIA: The debate over live streaming court proceedings in India has taken on new urgency in recent times, especially in the light of high-profile judicial remarks that have sparked public outrage. During a recent hearing in the RG Kar Medical College case, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal voiced strong reservations about live streaming sensitive issues, cautioning that broadcasting such proceedings could “fuel unnecessary sensationalism” and jeopardize judicial fairness.
Even though his demand was shut down by our CJI D Y Chandrachud, these concerns have only intensified after instances like Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court referring to a part of India (A muslim-dominated area pf Karnataka) as “Pakistan” during a hearing, and Justice Rajbir Singh Sehrawat controversially stating that, “The Supreme Court is not that supreme.” Such remarks, when magnified by media and public eye, highlight the risks associated with real-time courtroom transparency, raising questions about whether live streaming promotes justice or undermines it..
These remarks not only stirred controversy and gave fuel to the already going on debate but also raised concerns about the potential consequences of live streaming court proceedings. In an era where the digital age is attached to all facets of life, the question remains: does making justice more visible through live streaming lead to more transparency, or does it jeopardize the independence and dignity of the judiciary?
As the famous legal maxim suggests, “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.” However, this great idea must be weighed against the risks that come with real-time public scrutiny of the judicial process.
Live streaming in other countries
Since we are pulling out the big guns and are quoting everyone all around the world, it is only fair to have a look at how the process of live streaming have developed there as well. Countries like the United States, India, Brazil, and the UK have recognized the value of allowing citizens to witness legal processes firsthand, especially in cases of national or public interest. In India, for instance, the Supreme Court has initiated live streaming for select cases, making justice more accessible and fostering civic engagement.
Similarly, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court regularly broadcasts high-profile trials, which strengthens public confidence in its decisions. Even nations like South Africa and New Zealand have adopted live streaming for critical cases, allowing people to better understand the workings of their judiciary.
By implementing this practice, these countries are reinforcing the democratic principle of transparency while ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done by the public.
The Push for Transparency in Courtrooms
Coming back to India, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has always been a strong advocate of incorporating technology to make the judiciary more transparent and accessible to the public. He remarked,
“The digital age has transformed every facet of our lives, and the judiciary cannot remain insulated from this change.”
His vision for live streaming court proceedings is rooted in the desire to bring justice closer to the people by allowing them to observe legal reasoning firsthand and to make ourselves more accountable as well.
And how can we forget his beautiful remark during the proceeding of Karnataka HC judge, Justice V. Srishananda’s controversial remark. When asked upon by AG R Venkataramani and SG Tushar Mehta to not continue with this hearing in open court, CJI simply stated,
“The answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the courts. The answer was not to close doors and shut everything down.”
And thus giving a nudge that no matter what happens, the live proceedings should go on.
Enhanced Transparency
Live streaming can act as a powerful tool for enhancing transparency in the judiciary. By allowing real-time public access to court hearings, the judiciary could address concerns about opacity and secrecy in legal proceedings. This transparency is particularly significant in high-profile cases where public trust in the judicial process can be fragile.
Moreover, live streaming would allow citizens to witness the complexities and nuances of the justice system, creating a deeper understanding of how the courts function and what goes on behind a judgment.
As CJI Chandrachud rightly pointed out,
“It will bring justice closer to the people,”
-making the legal processes easier to understand and more accessible.
Public Education and Legal Awareness
The potential for public education is another strong argument in favor of live streaming. Legal proceedings often appear complex and inaccessible to those unfamiliar with the law. By broadcasting court sessions, the general public can learn how legal arguments are structured, how evidence is evaluated, and how judges arrive at decisions.
This can foster a more legally aware and literate society, equipping citizens with the knowledge to better understand their rights.
The democratization of legal knowledge could prove invaluable in empowering citizens. As Jeremy Bentham once said,
“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.”
By making courts accessible to the public, the judiciary can ensure that it remains accountable and transparent in delivering justice.
Increased Accountability and Professionalism
The heightened public scrutiny that comes with live streaming could act as a check on judicial and legal conduct. Judges, lawyers, and litigants may be more mindful of their language, demeanor, and behavior, knowing that they are being observed by the public. Controversial remarks like Justice Srishananda’s “Pakistan” comment or Justice Sehrawat’s critique of the Supreme Court could be curtailed if judges know that their every word is being broadcast live.
Additionally, the legal profession as a whole may experience a push toward greater professionalism. Lawyers, too, would likely exercise more caution in their presentations, arguments, and submissions, knowing that they are in the public eye.
This could ultimately lead to better legal representation and more thoughtful judicial conduct, enhancing the overall quality of the legal process.
The Risks of Live Streaming
While live streaming promises numerous benefits, it is not without significant risks. Critics argue that real-time broadcasting could undermine the very foundations of the judicial process, creating new challenges for maintaining judicial independence, privacy, and decorum in the courtroom.
One of the primary concerns is that live streaming may put undue pressure on judges to conform to public sentiment. As former judge of Supreme court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted,
“The media cannot be allowed to dictate how courts function.”
Judges might become overly cautious in their rulings, fearing public backlash, or they may lean toward popular opinion rather than focusing on impartial justice.
Moreover, live streaming could make judges more vulnerable to criticism based on selective reporting or misinterpretation of their comments. A simple remark taken out of context—like Justice Srishananda’s—could spark public outrage and fuel media narratives, undermining judicial independence and eroding public trust in the legal system.
The sensationalism of court proceedings is another major concern. The media, especially in high-profile cases, often focuses on sound bites and controversial moments, which can lead to the public forming opinions based on incomplete or misleading information.
When Justice Sehrawat remarked that “The Supreme Court is not that supreme,” his comment, taken out of the broader context of judicial commentary, became fodder for media discussions. Live streaming could exacerbate this tendency, with the public and media focusing more on sensational remarks than on the substantive legal issues at hand.
Live streaming could also expose sensitive information about litigants, victims, and witnesses, raising concerns about privacy and the potential for intimidation. Even though provisions may exist to exempt certain cases from live streaming—such as those involving minors or sexual assault survivors—the very act of making courtrooms public could discourage vulnerable witnesses from testifying freely.
As Justice Robert Jackson, former U.S. Supreme Court justice, once remarked, “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”
But does the risk outweigh the benefits of this process?
It might be a difficult thing to sell to people, considering that it has many benefits as well and at the hard end of the stick keeps everyone accountable.
A Measured Approach: Holding Judiciary accountable?
So, the question here arises, should judges not be liable for the remarks made with utter personal bias? Just as ministers are held accountable through the live streaming of parliamentary sessions, ensuring transparency in governance, courts and judges should similarly be held to public scrutiny through live proceedings. When parliamentary debates are broadcast, it allows citizens to witness decision-making processes, fostering accountability and trust in elected representatives.
In the same vein, live-streaming court proceedings can demystify the judicial process, showing the fairness and integrity of legal judgments. Judges, like ministers, are entrusted with significant authority, and their actions can profoundly impact society. Broadcasting courtroom proceedings would ensure that justice is not only delivered but also transparently visible, reinforcing the idea that public officials—whether in legislative or judicial roles—must operate under the same level of public accountability.
The push for live streaming court proceedings in India is a progressive step towards modernizing the judiciary and making it more accessible to the public. Chief Justice Chandrachud’s vision of a transparent, technology-driven judiciary is well-suited to the demands of the digital age.
While the implementation should be thoughtful to protect values like impartiality, judicial independence, and the dignity of court proceedings, transparency can greatly enhance public trust in the legal system. In today’s fast-paced digital world, transparency strengthens justice, and live streaming can be an essential tool to ensure that justice is seen as being delivered, without undermining the fairness of the process.
As the legal adage reminds us, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but we must also acknowledge that “Justice compromised by public spectacle is justice denied as well.” The judiciary must strike the right balance, using live streaming as a tool for openness while ensuring that the integrity of justice remains uncompromised by the potential distractions of public display.
With proper safeguards, transparency and fairness can coexist, strengthening the judiciary’s role in a modern democracy.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Live Streaming
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
