The Supreme Court of India has initiated live-streaming of important non-constitution bench cases, enhancing transparency and public accessibility since committing to this in 2018. This move represents a major stride towards making the judiciary more transparent and engaging for the public.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has taken a monumental step towards greater transparency and public engagement by live-streaming cases of vital public importance. After committing to live-streaming cases in 2018, the apex court, in 2024, has begun broadcasting cases that are not solely constitution bench matters. This initiative marks a significant milestone in the judiciary’s efforts to become more accessible to the public.
On July 11, the Supreme Court live-streamed the proceedings of the NEET-UG matter, a case that has captured nationwide attention following allegations of a paper leak. This case became the first to be broadcast live on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel.
Although the hearing could not proceed that day due to time constraints, the session involving the three-judge bench — Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra — was live-streamed for approximately one and a half hours. The session attracted over 68,000 viewers, highlighting the immense public interest in the case.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, addressing the public’s curiosity, emphasized-
“The aim of the live-streaming initiative is to improve transparency and provide the public with direct access to observe the judicial process.”
He further added-
“This represents a vital stride towards enhancing accessibility to the judiciary for the general public.”
Following this, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court live-streamed another significant case concerning thousands of teachers in West Bengal. This session focused on the petitions related to the West Bengal SSC school scam.
During this session, although no arguments on merits were heard, the three-judge bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud identified six broad categories of petitions filed in the matter. The categorization aimed to bring “some order to the chaos” before the official hearings could commence.
In the words of CJI Chandrachud-
“Categorizing petitions is essential to streamline the process and ensure a structured hearing of the issues.”
He added-
“This approach will enable a more efficient resolution of the complex issues at hand.”
ALSO READ: NEET-UG Row | ‘No Systemic Failure’: NTA tells Supreme Court
Sources within the Supreme Court clarified that the live-streamed cases are intended strictly for viewing purposes only. They stated-
“Any reproduction of the audio or video of the proceedings will be deemed ‘unauthorized reproduction,’ and the court administration may take action accordingly.”
This move by the Supreme Court has been welcomed by legal experts and the public alike. It signifies a progressive shift towards openness and accountability in the Indian judicial system. By live-streaming cases of high public interest, the Supreme Court is not only fostering transparency but also allowing citizens to engage more directly with judicial proceedings.
Legal analyst Meera Sinha commented-
“This initiative transforms the Indian judiciary, making the judicial process more accessible and understandable to the people.”
She further noted-
“Live-streaming important cases will contribute to fostering public trust and confidence in the judiciary.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to live-stream proceedings of crucial cases is seen as a step towards fulfilling its commitment made in 2018. This initiative reflects the court’s recognition of the public’s right to information and its role in a democratic society. By making judicial proceedings accessible to all, the Supreme Court is setting a precedent for other courts to follow.
In a significant move to enhance judicial transparency and public access, the Supreme Court has decided to expand live-streaming of its proceedings. This initiative aligns with the practice of several high courts that already live-stream their sessions on YouTube. The primary objective is to reduce the traffic on the virtual hearing links, which often reach their capacity of around 1,000 participants, especially during high-profile cases.
The foundation for this initiative was laid in 2018 when the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in the Swapnil Tripathi and Others v Supreme Court of India case. This judgment was pivotal as it allowed the live-streaming of court proceedings, emphasizing the need for transparency and greater access to justice. The court highlighted that live-streaming could help demystify the judicial process for the general public.
The court outlined specific types of cases that would be eligible for live-streaming, primarily focusing on matters of constitutional and national significance. However, it explicitly excluded certain sensitive cases from being broadcasted, including matrimonial disputes, sexual assault cases, and cases involving minors.
The judgment, which was delivered by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra along with Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, was widely acclaimed. Despite the widespread approval, there was little progress in implementing live-streaming until the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid technological adaptation by the Supreme Court.
During the pandemic, as virtual hearings became the norm, the Supreme Court began regularly live-streaming cases of constitutional importance. These were typically cases heard by constitution benches comprising five or more judges. Among the high-profile cases live-streamed during this period were those concerning the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, the Maharashtra political crisis, the abrogation of Article 370, and the grant of minority status to Aligarh Muslim University.
Following the successful trial of live-streaming constitution bench matters, the Supreme Court has now resolved to extend live streaming to cases of national importance. This marks a significant step towards greater transparency, but there is still considerable progress to be made.
Currently, live-streaming is restricted to a limited number of cases and is only available in the Chief Justice’s court. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the use of third-party platforms like YouTube for live-streaming was merely a temporary measure.