Author: Lakshay Gupta
College: JEMTEC School of Law
Introduction
In a democratic setup, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in interpreting laws, ensuring justice, and upholding the Constitution. Its credibility rests on public confidence, which in turn hinges on transparency and accountability. As Indian society becomes more participative and aware, there has been a growing demand for openness in public institutions, especially the judiciary.
One of the significant steps in this direction has been the proposition and partial implementation of live streaming of court proceedings. While this move is applauded as a tool for ensuring openness and increasing public understanding of the legal process, it simultaneously raises critical concerns regarding privacy, judicial decorum, and the risk of sensationalism.
This article seeks to explore the fine balance between the imperatives of transparency and the need to safeguard privacy and institutional dignity, with a particular focus on live streaming of judicial proceedings in India.
The Rationale Behind Judicial Transparency
Transparency in judicial processes is a cornerstone of democratic governance. It reinforces public trust in the legal system, ensures judicial accountability, and promotes an informed citizenry. The open court principle—rooted in the idea that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done—is central to modern jurisprudence. Live streaming acts as a technological enabler of this principle. It removes physical barriers to accessing courtrooms and ensures that justice is no longer confined within walls.
In the landmark judgment of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized live streaming as an extension of the right to access justice and information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court underscored the importance of transparency in enhancing legal literacy and demystifying judicial functioning for the common man. Thus, live streaming is not merely a technological upgrade; it is a constitutional innovation aimed at democratizing the delivery of justice.
The Case for Live Streaming
Live streaming of court proceedings is a progressive step toward making justice more accessible, transparent, and inclusive. It can bridge the gap between the judiciary and the public by allowing people to directly witness courtroom arguments, judicial reasoning, and the application of legal principles. In a country as vast and diverse as India, many citizens are unable to access courtrooms due to logistical, geographical, or procedural constraints. Live streaming eliminates these barriers by enabling virtual presence.
Moreover, it serves as a valuable educational resource for law students, legal researchers, and young advocates who can observe court dynamics in real-time. This will help them gain insights into court decorum, judicial temperament, and legal argumentation. It is particularly useful in constitutional benches or high-profile cases involving significant questions of law or public interest, such as the decriminalization of Section 377 IPC or the Ayodhya land dispute case.
These are moments of legal history that the public deserves to witness. Live streaming can also alleviate the burden on physical court infrastructure. In high-demand cases, where public interest is massive, courtrooms often struggle with space constraints. Virtual viewing can resolve this issue by allowing broader public participation without disrupting court functioning.
Concerns Regarding Privacy
Despite its numerous advantages, live streaming is not without serious drawbacks. The most pressing concern is the potential invasion of privacy. Judicial proceedings often involve sensitive and personal matters—ranging from matrimonial disputes, child custody, and sexual harassment cases to criminal trials involving vulnerable victims. Broadcasting such cases can expose parties to public scrutiny, social stigma, and emotional distress. The identity of victims, especially in cases of rape or juvenile justice, must be protected at all costs.
Moreover, witnesses and litigants may feel intimidated knowing their statements and appearances are being recorded and broadcasted. This can affect their willingness to testify truthfully or cooperate with the court. Judges too may find themselves under pressure, conscious that every word and gesture is being publicly viewed and scrutinized. This heightened visibility may inadvertently impact judicial independence and impartiality.
Another significant issue is the potential misuse of streamed content. Videos can be edited, misrepresented, or circulated out of context, leading to misinformation and reputational harm. In the age of viral social media, where snippets of courtroom footage can be sensationalized, the privacy of individuals involved in proceedings is at greater risk than ever.
Judicial Dignity and Decorum
The judiciary derives its authority not just from the Constitution but from the public’s respect for its impartiality and dignity. Courtrooms are solemn spaces where justice is administered with seriousness and decorum. Introducing live streaming into this environment carries the risk of turning judicial proceedings into public spectacles.
Advocates may indulge in grandstanding or tailor their arguments to appeal to a larger audience rather than the bench. Judges, aware of the live broadcast, may unconsciously modify their tone, language, or behavior. This can dilute the gravitas of the court and shift focus from justice to performance. Such dramatization undermines the sanctity of the process and the purpose of the judiciary.
In a country where public discourse is often polarized, there is also a danger that certain judgments may be met with instant public backlash, thereby eroding judicial independence.
Courts must be insulated from populist pressures. Therefore, safeguards are necessary to prevent the judiciary from becoming a subject of public entertainment or political debate.
Related Article You Must Like
Comparative International Practices
A global perspective offers valuable insights into how different jurisdictions balance transparency with privacy. In the United Kingdom, live streaming is allowed only in appellate courts, and even then, with strict controls. Trial proceedings are not televised to protect witnesses and prevent prejudicial impact on juries.
The United States follows a federal structure where some state courts permit cameras, but the U.S. Supreme Court continues to prohibit them. Canada, known for its transparency, provides recorded webcasts of Supreme Court hearings but excludes sensitive cases.
In Australia, the High Court publishes audio-visual recordings of hearings, while in South Africa, the Constitutional Court broadcasts proceedings in cases of national importance. These models reflect a cautious and calibrated approach where openness is embraced but not at the cost of fairness or dignity.
India must carefully study these international examples before adopting a blanket policy on live streaming. A one-size-fits-all solution may not be viable in the Indian context, given the diversity of cases and parties involved.
The Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) Judgment and Its Impact
The 2018 judgment in Swapnil Tripathi was a watershed moment in Indian judicial history. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that live streaming of court proceedings is intrinsic to the right to information and access to justice. It emphasized that transparency strengthens the legitimacy of the judicial institution and enhances its public image.
The Court directed the formulation of guidelines to ensure that streaming is carried out in a regulated manner. It proposed a phased implementation, beginning with constitutional matters in the Supreme Court. Importantly, the Court recognized that certain cases must be excluded from public view to safeguard privacy and prevent misuse.
Following this judgment, the Supreme Court approved the “Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings” in 2021, prepared by a committee headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. These draft rules provided a structured mechanism for recording, archiving, and streaming court proceedings while ensuring exclusion of sensitive content. However, actual implementation has been slow and uneven across High Courts, with varying degrees of commitment and technological preparedness.
Safeguards and Recommendations
To maintain the balance between transparency and privacy, several safeguards are essential:
1. Selective Streaming: Only proceedings involving constitutional interpretation, public interest litigation, and significant legal questions should be live streamed. Sensitive cases involving family matters, juveniles, or victims of sexual offences must be categorically excluded.
2. Anonymization and Blurring: Measures should be taken to protect the identity of victims, witnesses, and minors by anonymizing names and blurring faces in the videos.
3. Content Regulation: A time-delay mechanism can be introduced to filter inappropriate or confidential content before it reaches the public.
4. Training and Sensitization: Judicial officers, lawyers, and court staff must be trained in handling live-streamed proceedings with decorum and professionalism.
5. Technological Infrastructure: Investment in secure and high-quality audio-visual equipment is necessary to ensure smooth streaming without glitches or breaches.
6. Legal Framework: A statutory backing for live streaming guidelines must be enacted, incorporating data protection principles and penalizing misuse of content.
7. Archival and Accessibility: Archived videos should be stored on official judicial portals with appropriate metadata, categorization, and public access tools.
Conclusion
The live streaming of court proceedings represents a significant step towards judicial reform and transparency in India. It has the potential to revolutionize public engagement with the legal system, enhance legal education, and promote institutional accountability. However, the enthusiasm for openness must be tempered with a cautious understanding of its repercussions.
Unchecked or unregulated live streaming can infringe upon the privacy of individuals, distort the solemnity of judicial proceedings, and expose the system to manipulation and sensationalism.
Therefore, a carefully balanced and phased approach is essential. The judiciary must frame clear guidelines and implement robust safeguards to harmonize the ideals of transparency, privacy, and institutional dignity.
By learning from international best practices and tailoring its model to the Indian context, the judiciary can adopt live streaming not just as a procedural change but as a transformative step toward a more open and participative legal system.
References
1. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639
2. Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India – Freedom of Speech and Expression
3. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, “Report on Live Streaming of Court Proceedings”, 2018
4. Supreme Court of India, “Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court
Proceedings”, 2021 (Draft Rules)
5. https://www.legallyindia.com
7. Bar and Bench reports on implementation of live streaming rules
About the Author
