IMPORTANT POINTS
Live streaming of court proceedings is desirable and has been adopted by many jurisdictions.
Supreme Court agreed to recommendations of the Attorney General of India
Model guidelines suggested.
Framing of Rules by the Supreme Court under Article 145(1) also suggested.

Headnote:Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (For himself and Dipak Misra, CJI)
       (a) Constitution of India – Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) – Right to justice – Opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on section of people – Right to know and receive information – To plead ignorance of law being impermissible, there is corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the law and the developments thereof – Access to Court proceedings is made possible by way of live streaming of Court proceedings – Article 145(4) stipulating pronouncements in open Court – Section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 153-B, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – However, sometimes it becomes necessary for the Courts to hold in-camera trials – May be appropriate to have a proper and balanced regulatory framework before the concept of live streaming of Court proceedings of courts is put into action. (Para 2, 3, 6, 7)
       (1966) 3 SCR 744 – Referred
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to justice – Live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings at least in respect of cases of Constitutional and national importance, having an impact on the public at large or on a large number of people in India – Unanimity about it being a good beginning – Technologically feasible and adopted in other jurisdictions – Can epitomize transparency, good governance and accountability by giving the viewing public a virtual presence in the courtroom and also educate them about the working of the court. (Para 8, 9)
       © Constitution of India – Article 129 – Publication of court proceedings of the Supreme Court – A facet of the status of Supreme Court as a Court of Record – Live streaming of proceedings – Affirmation of Constitutional rights of the public and the litigants in particular – Article 21 – Proper regulatory framework needs to be provided by formulating rules under Article 145 – Open court hearing – Limited by size and capacity of court room and the right of privacy and dignity of the litigants – Comprehensive guidelines for live streaming of Court proceedings in the Supreme Court suggested by the learned Attorney General for India generally agreed upon – Directions given for framing rules incorporating recommendations of the Attorney General of India
       (Para 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
       Per Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Concurring)
       (d) Administration of justice – Open justice – Live streaming – Fair administration of justice and the rule of law – Open court – A significant procedural dimension of the concept of open justice – Crucial to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice – Open courts effectively foster public confidence by allowing litigants and members of the public to view courtroom proceedings and ensure that the judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. (Para 3, 5, 6, 7)
       [1913] A.C. 417; [1979] AC 440; [1995] HCA 2; 448 US 555 (1980) – Referred
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 145(4) r/w section 153-B, Code of civil Procedure, 1908 and section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Open court – Judgments to be delivered in open court – Justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done – However, Courts though open in law and in fact, actually become far removed from the lives of individual citizens because of several constraints – This is anomalous because courts exist primarily to provide justice to them. (Para 8, 10, 12, 13)
       (1966) 3 SCR 744; (1985) 3 SCC 545; (1992) 3 SCC 637; (2010) 4 SCC 653 – Relied upon
       (f) Administration of justice – Open courts – Use of Information technology – Internet – Courts must also take the aid of technology to enhance the principle of open courts by moving beyond physical accessibility to virtual accessibility – Video conferencing and live streaming – e-courts – e-Committee of Supreme Court – Initiatives – Platforms like e-Courts Portal, Mobile App, SMS Push, SMS Pull, Automated e-Mails, Touch Screen Kiosks and Service Centre, e-Payment, e-Filing – Concept of Video-Streaming/Web-Cast.
       (Para 14, 17
       (2017) 4 SCC 150; (2018) 1 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (g) Administration of justice – Live streaming – Benefits – Virtual access to courtroom proceedings –Public’s right to know about court proceedings – Reducing public’s reliance on second-hand narratives to obtain information – Educative, a tool for law students – Enhancing the rule of law and promoting better understanding of legal governance – Enhancing accountability of judicial institutions and persons concerned. (Para 18)
       (425/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97; 449 U.S. 560 (1981) – Referred
       (h) Administration of justice – Live streaming of court proceedings – Many jurisdictions already adopting – Supreme Court should go for a pilot project to start with – Live streaming should be subject to carefully structured guidelines – Model guidelines incorporating recommendations of the Attorney General of India suggested – Framing of Rules by Supreme Court under Article 145(1), Constitution of India suggested. (Para 20, 21, 22, 25, 26)
       Facts of the case:
       The petitioners and interventionists, claiming to be public spirited persons, have sought a declaration that Supreme Court case proceedings of “constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people” should be live streamed in a manner that is easily accessible for public viewing. Further direction is sought to frame guidelines to enable the determination of exceptional cases that qualify for live streaming and to place those guidelines before the Full Court of this Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Recommendations of the Attorney General agreed to.
       Result: Petitions allowed. Model guidelines suggested.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment endorses live streaming/open court concept and recommends a regulatory framework with rules under Article 145(1) (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes open justice and public access to proceedings, citing Article 21, Article 145, CrPC Section 327, CPC Section 153-B (!) (!) (!) . - It proposes a phased, pilot-based implementation with guidelines and strict safeguards to protect privacy and administration of justice (!) (!) (!) . - It sets out recommended categories to be excluded from live streaming (e.g., matrimonial, sexual assault, cases involving minors) and the presiding judge’s discretion to disallow in specific cases (!) (!) . - It calls for authoritative rules by the Supreme Court to regulate live streaming, including delays, room arrangements, and archival access, with Court retaining copyright and final say (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Question 1? How to implement live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings while balancing open justice with privacy and fair trial concerns.

Question 2? What is the scope and criteria for determining which cases are eligible for live streaming of court proceedings.

Question 3? What are the regulatory framework and safeguards (including pilot phases, user rights, and judge's discretion) required to regulate live streaming in the Supreme Court of India?

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The petitioners and interventionists, claiming to be public spirited persons, have sought a declaration that Supreme Court case proceedings of “constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people” should be live streamed in a manner that is easily accessible for public viewing. Further direction is sought to frame guidelines to enable the determination of exceptional cases that qualify for live streaming and to place those guidelines before the Full Court of this Court. To buttress these prayers, reliance has been placed on the dictum of a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1966) 3 SCR 744 which has had an occasion to inter alia consider the arguments of journalists that they had a fundamental right to carry on their occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; that they also had a right to attend the proceedings in court under Article 19(1)(d); and that their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) included their right to publish a faithful report of the proceedings which they had witnessed and heard in Court as journalists. The Court whilst considering the said argument went on to emphasise about the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence and support. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from the said decision propounding about the efficacy of hearing of cases in open courts, in the following words:

“20….. It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court room. As Bentham has observed :

‘In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity”. (Scott v. Scott [(1911) All. E.R. 1, 30]) ”

2. Indeed, the right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public gets access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the Courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on section of people. This would educate them about the issues which come up for consideration before the Court on real time basis.

3. As no person can be heard to plead ignorance of law, there is corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the law and the developments thereof including the evolution of the law which may happen in the process of adjudication of cases before this Court. The right to know and receive information, it is by now well settled, is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which reason the public is entitled to witness Court proceedings involving issues having an impact on the pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 945

IMPORTANT POINTSLive streaming of court proceedings is desirable and has been adopted by many jurisdictions. Supreme Court agreed to recommendations of the Attorney General of India Model guidelines suggested. Framing of Rules by the Supreme Court under Article 145(1) also suggested.

Question 1? How to implement live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings while balancing open justice with privacy and fair trial concerns.

Question 2? What is the scope and criteria for determining which cases are eligible for live streaming of court proceedings.

Question 3? What are the regulatory framework and safeguards (including pilot phases, user rights, and judge's discretion) required to regulate live streaming in the Supreme Court of India?

Cases Referred (7)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Live streaming of court proceedings is desirable and has been adopted by many jurisdictions.
Supreme Court agreed to recommendations of the Attorney General of India
Model guidelines suggested.
Framing of Rules by the Supreme Court under Article 145(1) also suggested.