The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking mandatory live streaming of court proceedings and systemic reforms to ensure fair and respectful treatment of lawyers and litigants, reaffirming existing transparency measures.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Matthews J. Nedumpara seeking sweeping reforms in the Indian judicial system, including mandatory video recording of court proceedings and measures to address the alleged ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan heard the plea. Nedumpara argued that the bar and bench are “two sides of the same coin”, emphasizing the need for a mechanism to safeguard litigants and advocates from unfair treatment within the judicial process.
Court’s Observations
Justice Manmohan referred to the landmark judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), in which a three-judge Bench recognized access to justice as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court in Tripathi had also highlighted that transparency in the judiciary could be enhanced by allowing the public to witness court proceedings.
Following that verdict, the Supreme Court’s e-Committee formulated the Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, providing a framework for High Courts and subordinate courts to establish live-streaming systems.
“Live streaming and recording were already addressed in Swapnil Tripathi. You filed a substantive writ petition which was disposed of. The issue has been decided,”
Justice Manmohan told Nedumpara. After brief submissions, the Bench dismissed the plea.
ALSO READ: Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Merely for Online Celebration or Status Updates: Delhi High Court
Background of the Petition
The petition, listed earlier on September 19 and heard today after being rescheduled twice, sought a series of institutional and procedural reforms. Nedumpara and other petitioners demanded:
- Mandatory video recording of all court and tribunal proceedings in India.
- Preservation of such records for at least six months.
- Right of access to these recordings for litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders.
The plea also called for an end to discriminatory treatment of advocates and litigants, arguing that the system often favors senior advocates and those with influential connections, while junior lawyers and ordinary citizens face discourtesy and perfunctory hearings.
Allegations of Ill-Treatment and Systemic Bias
The petition highlighted several incidents of alleged judicial insensitivity, including a recent episode in the Bombay High Court where a young lawyer reportedly collapsed after being harshly reprimanded by the Bench. It also cited a viral video of a High Court judge referring to a junior advocate as “garbage of the court.”
According to the petitioners, these examples underscore a culture of intimidation and humiliation within certain courtrooms. They argued that video recording proceedings could serve as both a deterrent and a tool for accountability, ensuring that dignity and decorum are upheld for all participants.
The plea also criticized the handling of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136, asserting that the average hearing time per SLP is only 93 seconds, a statistic the petitioners claimed demonstrates a denial of fair hearing and undermines access to justice.
The petition questioned the doctrine of precedents that ties the validity of judgments to the numerical strength of benches rather than the soundness of reasoning. It termed the current practice “anomalous,” noting that smaller benches cannot disagree with larger or coordinate benches without reference to an even larger bench, thereby consuming valuable judicial time.
The petition traced its roots to a long-standing campaign for transparency in judicial proceedings.
- In 2010, Nedumpara wrote to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court seeking a video recording of the proceedings.
- In 2014, then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha explored the feasibility of audio recording in courts.
- However, in 2016, the Bombay High Court dismissed petitions for video recording, remarking that such measures would “reduce the court into a circus.” The Supreme Court later upheld this view in 2016 and 2018.
Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic forced courts to adopt virtual hearings, which demonstrated that technology integration and recording of proceedings were both possible and effective. Yet, the plea noted, no uniform system has been implemented for preservation or access to these recordings.
The petition sought multiple directions from the Supreme Court, including:
- Declaration of transparency and accountability as constitutional requirements under the principle of open justice.
- Mandatory video recording of all court proceedings, preserved for at least six months.
- Access rights for litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders to these recordings.
- Guidelines to prevent ill-treatment of advocates and litigants and ensure equal opportunity of hearing regardless of counsel’s seniority.
- Relaxation of excessive entry restrictions in High Courts like Kerala and Madras, which allegedly curtail public access to courtrooms.
ALSO READ: Telangana Local Body Polls: Supreme Court Upholds 42% BC Quota
Case Title: Shri Mathews J Nedumpara & Ors. v. The Supreme Court of India & Ors.