Indira Jaising marks 7 years of live-streaming verdicts, highlighting judicial transparency. Fact-checkers correct the landmark ‘Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court’ case name, emphasizing accuracy in landmark judgments.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, marked seven years of the live-streaming judgment by posting:
“Celebrating seven years of live streaming judgment: ‘Indira Jaising vs Secretary General, Supreme Court’. All credit to former CJI U U Lalit for bringing the judgment into force which introduced transparency & accountability in the functioning of judiciary.”
This post, however, sparked a factual correction. One user politely pointed out that the official title of the case is “Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India”, and not as stated in her post. They also reminded that the judgment was authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
One user replied:
“With all due respects to you and your contribution to this cause, let us humbly point out that you have written the name of the judgment wrongly. It is Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court Of India. It is only fair to also mention that this judgment was authored by Justice DY Chandrachud.”
ALSO READ: Union Govt Extends Attorney General R Venkataramani’s Tenure by 2 Years
Indira Jaising, in response, wrote:
“Ask him how this happened if you know him, with all due respect to you.”
The exchange remained respectful, with the commenters acknowledging her pioneering role in advocating for live streaming, while reiterating the need for accuracy in attribution of landmark judgments.
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India
On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2017), paving the way for live streaming of court proceedings of matters of constitutional and national importance. The judgment, authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and concurred by then CJI Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, highlighted the values of open courts, transparency, accountability, and the right to access justice.
What the Judgment Held
- Open Courts as a Constitutional Principle: The Court reaffirmed that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. Article 145(4) of the Constitution mandates open court pronouncements.
- Right to Access Justice: Citizens, journalists, law students, and civil society could now observe proceedings in real time, enhancing legal awareness and democratic participation.
- Transparency and Good Governance: Live streaming was seen as a tool to strengthen trust in the judiciary and ensure accountability.
- Limitations: The Court also recognized that in some cases, where privacy, dignity, or sensitive issues are involved, live streaming might not be appropriate.
- Regulatory Framework: The Court directed the creation of rules to govern live streaming in a phased, structured, and progressive manner.
This decision has since been celebrated as a watershed moment for judicial transparency in India.
Case Title:
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2017
Read Judgment: