INTRODUCTION
The unexpected outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic has increased demand for virtual court hearings from the lowest court to the superior court significantly. Because it expedites proceedings and saves time, this has been popular in recent years.
Court hearings being broadcast is a step toward greater access to justice and openness, but there are worries about how live streaming may affect judges and those watching the proceedings.
The public cannot watch the court proceedings live online; only attorneys and clients are permitted to do so. How can the Indian judiciary be detracted from it by maintaining public trust in the same when both the national and state governments are providing openness to their departments?
BACKGROUND
Nearly four years after a request for transparency, a decision has been made.
The decision's initial steps were taken in 2018.
It was decided that the right to access justice guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) includes live broadcasting of court proceedings.
A three-judge bench decided to consider a public interest lawsuit asking for live streaming of court cases on issues of constitutional and national importance.
On August 26, 2022, the Supreme Court aired live video of its proceedings on the day when the former Chief Justice of India (CJI) announced his retirement.
The first high court to broadcast court sessions live was the Gujarat High Court, which was thereafter followed by the Karnataka High Court.
OBJECTIVES
- Determine the effects that telecasting court proceedings live can have on the lives of ordinary citizens and whether can it bring any positive changes.
- Is there going to be a shift in people's attitude towards the Supreme Court?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
- Should supreme court proceedings be live telecasted?
- Should it have its own platform or YouTube to live-stream proceedings?
HYPOTHESIS
Based on prior information, the author feels that there should be a live streams of proceedings of SC cases because by watching these people will not only just increase their legal literacy but will also potentially enhance their continuous engagement with the Constitution and laws.
Should Supreme Court Proceedings Live Telecasted
The Indian judicial system is based on the idea of "open courts," which implies that all citizens can attend court proceedings. However, this is not how things actually work. Only a small number of persons are physically permitted and allowed in the courtroom on any given day.
Why shouldn't technology be used to improve the legal system? There is still a need to raise the standard significantly, even though the courts are now choosing to digitise, with online records of all cases, a facility for filing FIRs online, an automated system of case rotation, etc.
Why shouldn't millions of people be able to watch the complex discussions that take place in the halls of justice in light of these technical advancements? Justice should, as they say, not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
In all types of cases or in all courts, live streaming is not necessary. The focus is on making things that are really important to the public visible to everyone. Therefore, it does not apply to situations involving a privacy concern, such as family or criminal cases, or situations involving complex legal procedures, like the majority of trial court cases. However, problems that are of vital public concern, such as the admission of women to the Sabarimala temple (The Sabarimala Temple is regarded as Lord Ayyappa's birthplace. The temple is well-known for its unusual religious traditions, which include a 41-day penance during which worshipers forego worldly pleasures before entering the building. Lord Ayyappa is revered by followers as a celibate divinity. In order to preserve celibacy, women in their "menstruating years" between the ages of 10 and 50 were traditionally forbidden from entering the temple.), the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme (The primary identifying number for all legitimate inhabitants of India was meant to be Aadhaar, according to the government. It has made Aadhaar freely available to all legitimate residents. A resident must submit their biometric information, which includes a scan of their fingerprints and retinas, in order to apply for the card. The data must be kept in a centralised database by the UIDAI. The Aadhaar Card has been gradually made necessary for many benefit programmes by the government. The Aadhaar scheme has been contested before the Supreme Court for violating constitutionally protected fundamental rights.) or the legality of Section 377 of the IPC.
Live streaming has been permitted for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha meetings since 2004 in an attempt to promote transparency. Similar to this, videotaping at various international courts, most notably the International Court of Justice, as well as the top courts in Canada and Australia demonstrates that this process is not unusual nor particularly challenging.
Strong arguments in favour of enabling live streaming of court sessions include the right to information, access to justice, the need to create the appropriate perception, as well as the necessity to enlighten the general public about how the judiciary operates.
You can make a compelling argument for allowing live streaming and recording of videos if you want to prevent several versions of the same thing, inaccurate fact projections, the threat of fake news, or poor reporting.
The accountability benefits of broadcasting legislative proceedings may outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to the judiciary. It's easy to understand why. In a democracy, the people have sovereign rights and elect their representatives. The public, however, cannot evaluate the judges. Judges are not subject to either public or sovereign accountability. They only have to answer to the law, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
No matter how well-intentioned, the unwelcome public attention brought on by live broadcasting tends to make judges accountable to the public and subject to popular public opinion. In a democratic system, there is a danger inherent in this. Popularity drives the executive and the legislature to act, but the courts must uphold justice, even if it puts one individual against the entire community. The purpose of constitutional courts is to guard against abuses that the executive and legislative branches might commit against a minority. Through live-streaming, the personality of judges is more likely to spark public discussion, which could lead to other issues. The verdict rendered should be the centre of attention.
Live streaming could potentially result in practical issues. There is a larger chance that attorneys may try to promote themselves in their presentations to the Bench. To help the court reach a just and logical decision, advocates argue based on the premises of the law and logic. The chance of a more impartial administration of justice increases the more, one participates in this discussion. With live streaming, there is a good chance that attorneys will speak to both the judges and the general audience. Their objectivity will only be hampered by this.
Another crucial point is that appropriate skill is necessary to comprehend arguments made in a courtroom, particularly before the Supreme Court's Constitution Benches. The debate is not like the ones we are used to watching on television. Additionally, judges make oral comments and ask questions during hearings that may not be a formal expression of their thoughts. Contradictory observations are frequently made to get the side of opposing parties. Live broadcasting will replace the practise of responsible reporting by qualified journalists and attorneys. Unreasonable discussion during an oral observation by a court could make the judge aware, which would disrupt the usual flow of the proceedings.
The administration of justice would be improved by using audio and video records of court hearings rather than live streaming. These can be utilised during a case review or appeal, particularly when a judge is acting arbitrarily or when a lawyer's remarks are not accurately documented in the ruling. In Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court has already issued an order instructing all High Courts to ensure CCTVs and audio and video records in lower courts. A copy of the recordings should be made available to the parties involved and the general public under the Right to Information Act, and this order should be extended to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018)
CASE
“In 2017, a number of people and organisations petitioned the Supreme Court of India in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution. In the petition, it was demanded 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”. In addition, the Petition also sought guidelines from the Court to enable the future determination of cases that would qualify for live streaming.
The Petitioners relied on the Supreme Court case namely Naresh Shridhar Mirjkar v. State of Maharashtra [(1966) 3 S.C.R 744] (‘Mirjkar’) wherein it was held that Article 19 of the Constitution included the right of journalists to publish reports of court proceedings. In that case the Court had emphasized “the efficacy of open trials for upholding the legitimacy, effectiveness of the Courts and for enhancement of public confidence and support”.
JUDGEMENT
“The Judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Khanwilkar delivered the majority Judgment on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Deepak Mishra. Justice D.Y. Chanrachud delivered a separate concurring Judgment.
The Bench ruled that proceedings of cases having constitutional and national importance before the Supreme Court should be broadcast to the public.
The Judgment is a significant decision on the concepts of Open Justice, access to public information and transparency in the judicial process. Though the Judgment only directs that certain proceedings in the Supreme Court be live-streamed for the time being, it has opened the doors for live-streaming to be extended to all proceedings in the Supreme Court, High Courts and proceedings in lower courts.”
Live streaming of Supreme Court: opinion of the Attorney General (AG) of India
• Pilot project: The Attorney General suggested testing live streaming solely in Constitution Bench matters in Court No. 1, the CJI's court.
The project's success would determine whether live streaming should be adopted by the Supreme Court and all other courts in India.
• The Attorney General also suggested archiving the hearings and allowing transcripts. The Attorney General added that the court should continue to have the authority to halt broadcasting.
• Justification for the opinion: The major justifications mentioned included clearing up courtroom overcrowding and enhancing litigants' physical access to courts.
• The court must prohibit live streaming in cases like these:
- Matrimonial matters,
- Cases involving juveniles or the protection of privacy of young offenders,
- Cases involving national security,
- Cases involving sexual assault and rape,
- Cases where publicity would affect the administration of justice,
- Cases that can incite rage and animosity between communities.
An own platform/ YouTube to live-stream proceedings
The usage of YouTube is only temporary; the Supreme Court will have a dedicated "platform" for streaming its hearings.
The Supreme Court wants to formalise live streaming so that all of the nation's courts can use a standardised platform to broadcast their hearings online.
In order to create a standardised platform where courts all throughout the nation can livestream their hearings, the Supreme Court aims to institutionalise the live streaming procedure.
According to sources, the supreme court may broadcast events live on YouTube and then host them on its server. People would have easy access to the proceedings of the supreme court via their mobile devices, laptops, and PCs.
WHY Prefer Dedicated Platform Over YouTube
Videos of Indian court sessions that are already available on YouTube and other social media platforms with sensational titles and few contexts are leading to the public's transmission of false information, as has been the case recently.The business deals with broadcasters are likewise concerning.
Another issue to be concerned about is the unauthorised usage of live streaming videos because it will be very challenging for the government to regulate it.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judicial system is based on the idea of an open court, and as the Supreme Court is a constitutional institution, the public has a right to know about court proceedings, which are now public.The right perception, fostering public confidence, ensuring access to justice as geographic locations will no longer be a barrier, building the right perception, increasing transparency, and educating the general public on how the judiciary operates are all significant advantages of live-streaming court proceedings.
The public shouldn't have access to cases having a privacy component, such as family or criminal matters, or topics with legal procedural complexity, like the majority of trial court proceedings.
Comments
Post a Comment