Justice Vikram Nath has urged the Delhi High Court to start live-streaming its proceedings, calling it the premier institution of the country. He reminded that judges had no objections and asked to be invited when live-streaming begins.
The Allahabad High Court has declined a request for live streaming court hearings, citing the matter as administrative rather than judicial. This decision follows a Public Interest Litigation from Raj Vikram Singh. The court noted ongoing efforts to digitize proceedings and emphasized the need for transparency in the justice system.
The Delhi High Court refused to mandate the retention of recorded court proceedings, highlighting concerns over the impact on judicial quality and security. The court stressed the need for adequate preparation and safeguards due to potential misuse of live-streamed videos, emphasizing that broad directives could undermine judicial integrity.
![[Hacking Incident] Calcutta HC YouTube Channel Live-Streaming Session Interrupted by Obscene Content](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Image.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Yesterday, On 28th October, a Calcutta High Court live stream was interrupted by an obscene video, raising concerns over the safety of virtual courtrooms. The authorities are investigating the incident, which follows a previous cybersecurity breach at the Supreme Court. Enhanced security measures are considered essential for safeguarding judicial platforms against cyber threats.
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.
A petition by the Advocates’ Association led the Karnataka High Court to rule against private individuals uploading videos of court proceedings. This decision came after controversial remarks by Justice V. Srishananda went viral. The Supreme Court intervened, requesting a report on the matter. Justice Srishananda later apologized for his comments.
The Supreme Court instructed today (17th Sept) the CBI to provide an update on the R G Kar Medical College and Hospital case, emphasizing the importance of public interest and transparency. They also refused to halt live proceedings despite concerns raised by the West Bengal government. The Court stressed the need to protect the victim’s identity and instructed Wikipedia to remove sensitive information. Additionally, the CBI was asked to submit a status report on the financial irregularities in medical departments. The case involves the rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor, leading to multiple unresolved questions and investigations into potential corruption and evidence tampering.
![[RG Kar Rape-Murder Case] Veteran Human Rights Lawyer Indira Jaising to Represent Junior Doctors in Supreme Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-273.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Allahabad High Court has directed the district administration to ensure safety at the Banke Bihari temple in Mathura, assigning responsibility for law and order during the festival. The court has also ordered that live streaming be restricted to within the temple to manage crowd control and prevent overcrowding.