NEW DELHI: Four years ago, the Supreme Court while allowing live-streaming of its hearings had ruled that the right to access of justice which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution will be meaningful only if the public gets access to proceedings which unfold before the courts.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Live-streaming as an extension of the principle of open courts will ensure that the interface between a court hearing with virtual reality will result in the dissemination of information in the widest possible sense, imparting transparency and accountability to the judicial process,” the SC had ruled in its 2018 verdict.
But the ruling that aimed to offer an option to the public to witness live court proceedings and provide them open justice was implemented in its truest sense only when the top court finally decided to live-stream constitution bench cases of constitutional and national importance.
September 27 marked the beginning towards this historic move as it enabled people from every nook and corner to view on their screen ongoing proceedings of the top court. Around eight lakh viewers were tuned into the first ever live session to watch the proceedings that were going on before three constitution benches. The general public on the first day witnessed a bench headed by CJI UU Lalit reserving verdict on the pleas challenging the 10% reservation for economic weaker sections (EWSs) in admission and jobs, five-judge bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud allowed ECI to go ahead with Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde’s plea to be recognised as the “real Shiv Sena” and claim party’s symbol “bow & arrow” and the bench headed by the third senior most SC judge, Justice SK Kaul, hearing pleas on the validity of All India Bar Exam.
On the second day of the proceedings being live-streamed, the viewers got an opportunity to witness a bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer passing an order to consider whether pleas challenging the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation policy has become “academic” and requires any consideration at all on October 12. The third day of the live-streaming enabled public to watchon YouTube the proceedings before another five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph about the petitions related to WhatsApp’s privacy policy, pleas against laws by Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra governments allowing bull-taming sport Jalikattu and the Centre’s petition seeking to exempt armed forces personnel from ambit of 2018 judgment that decriminalised adultery.
Although live-proceedings would foster public confidence as it will allow even persons having logistical issues and infrastructural restrictions to witness them in person. However, it may also result in common man forming a perception with regards to the judiciary which can be positive or negative. Against this backdrop this paper spoke to few legal experts on whether this decision is a game changer or a big concern?
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa said, “The objective of live-streaming is to facilitate the concept of open court hearings. It makes the Justice Delivery System more transparent and accountable. I compliment the Supreme Court to make it happen. I’m sure this is a big milestone in the history of the Justice System of our country.”
Former Allahabad HC Chief Justice Govind Mathur said, “Live-streaming of judicial proceedings will increase peoples’ faith and accountability to the institution. At the same time judges must remain prepared for debate and criticism relating to their approach, observations, views, attitude, etc, not only by the legal experts and academicians but also by novice, amateurish and biased viewers and critics. If executed with absolute maturity and perfection it would be a game changer.”