Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 784
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Can the public have real-time access to court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, paving the way for live streaming of court proceedings. This decision marks a significant step towards enhancing transparency and public access to the judicial process. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, with Justice Chandrachud penning a separate concurring opinion.
Case Background
Several public-spirited individuals and organizations filed petitions seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance should be live-streamed for public viewing. The petitioners argued that such a measure would enhance public access to justice and promote transparency. They relied on the principle of open justice, as emphasized in the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744, which highlighted the importance of open trials for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005 | e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India prepared the ‘National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology’. |
| 2010 | Phase-I of the e-Courts Project was approved, enabling computerization of 14,249 courts in the district judiciary by 2015. |
| 26 August 2014 | Advisory Council of the National Mission of Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms discussed audio-video recording in courts. |
| 8 January 2014 | E-Committee meeting deferred the issue of audio-video recording, requiring consultation with Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. |
| 2017 | The Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa allowed for media to broadcast court proceedings in criminal matters. |
| 2017 | German parliament passed the „Act to Increase Media Access in Court Proceedings and to Improve Communication Aid for People with Speech or Hearing Impairments. |
| 17 May 2002 | Brazilian congress enacted a law enabling the creation of a public television channel, TV Justiça, dedicated to the judiciary. |
| 14 August 2002 | Supreme Court proceedings have been telecast live on TV Justica in Brazil. |
| 1 October 2013 | The High Court of Australia made available on its website audio-visual recordings of all full-court hearings held in Canberra. |
| 2009 | The Supreme Court of Canada started broadcasting/webcasting live video streams of court hearings on its website. |
| July 2016 | The Supreme People’s Court of China allowed proceedings of its public hearings to be broadcast live. |
| 2005 | The Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 in England exempted the Supreme Court from the prohibition imposed under the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. |
| 2013 | The Crime and Courts Act, 2013 in England exempted recording of Supreme Court proceedings from the ambit of the Contempt of Court Act. |
| 2018 | The Supreme Court of India allowed live streaming of court proceedings. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court considered the submissions of the petitioners, interventionists, and the Attorney General for India. The Court noted the suggestions provided by the Attorney General, which included a framework for evolving guidelines for live streaming. The Court also examined the practices of various jurisdictions globally regarding live streaming of court proceedings.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:
- Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India: This article mandates that judgments of the Supreme Court shall be delivered in open court.
- Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section states that criminal courts should be open to the public, with certain exceptions. “The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them…”
- Section 153-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This section provides that civil courts should be open to the public, with certain exceptions. “The place in which any Civil Court is held for the purpose of trying any suit shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have access so far as the same can conveniently contain them…”
The Court also emphasized that the right of access to justice, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, and the right to know and receive information, a facet of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, support the public’s entitlement to witness court proceedings.
Arguments
The petitioners and interventionists argued that:
- Live streaming of court proceedings is essential for public access to justice.
- It would educate the public about legal issues and the judicial process.
- It would increase productivity by reducing the need for litigants to travel to courts.
- Technology makes live streaming feasible and it has been adopted in other jurisdictions.
The Attorney General for India suggested guidelines for live streaming, including:
- Introducing live streaming as a pilot project in Court No. 1 for Constitution Bench references.
- Designating a media room in the court premises for viewing live proceedings.
- Laying down guidelines to safeguard and limit broadcasting.
- Restricting use of footage for news, education, and current affairs purposes only.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners and Interventionists: Need for Live Streaming |
|
| Attorney General for India: Guidelines for Live Streaming |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioners innovatively argued that live streaming is not just a matter of convenience but a fundamental aspect of the right to know and access justice in the digital age.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether Supreme Court case proceedings of constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large should be live-streamed.
- Whether guidelines should be framed to determine the cases that qualify for live streaming.
The Court also considered the sub-issue of balancing the principle of open justice with the need to protect the privacy rights of litigants and witnesses.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Supreme Court case proceedings of constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large should be live-streamed. | Yes, with certain safeguards. | Live streaming is an extension of the principle of open justice and enhances public access to the judicial process. |
| Whether guidelines should be framed to determine the cases that qualify for live streaming. | Yes, guidelines should be framed. | To ensure that the process of live streaming does not interfere with the administration of justice or impinge upon any rights of the litigants or witnesses. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 744 | Supreme Court of India | Importance of Open Courts | Emphasized the importance of open trials for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and as a check against judicial vagaries. |
| Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 | House of Lords | Publicity and Justice | Quoted Bentham’s view on publicity as the soul of justice. |
| AG v Leveller Magazine, [1979] AC 440 | House of Lords | Open Courts and Judicial Arbitrariness | Highlighted that open courts are a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness. |
| Grollo v Palmer, [1995] HCA 2 | High Court of Australia | Public Hearing and Justice | Stressed the importance of public hearings for the satisfaction of parties and the public. |
| Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 US 555 (1980) | Supreme Court of United States | Public Trials and Community Value | Observed that public trials have significant community therapeutic value. |
| Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 | Supreme Court of India | Importance of Hearing | Reiterated the importance of a hearing and that justice must be seen to be done. |
| Life Insurance Corporation of India v Prof. Manubhai D. Shah, (1992) 3 SCC 637 | Supreme Court of India | Dissemination of Information | Emphasized the role of media in educating the public and the importance of disseminating information in a democracy. |
| Mohd. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653 | Supreme Court of India | Definition of Open Court | Described an open court as one to which the general public has a right to be admitted. |
| Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 | Supreme Court of India | Use of Technology | Took into consideration technological developments to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain categories of cases. |
| Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh, (2018) 1 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Technology and Justice Delivery | Discussed the importance of using technology to enhance the delivery of justice. |
Judgment
| Submission Made by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Live streaming of court proceedings is essential for public access to justice. | The Court agreed that live streaming is an extension of the principle of open justice and enhances public access to the judicial process. |
| It would educate the public about legal issues and the judicial process. | The Court acknowledged that live streaming would educate the public about legal issues and the judicial process, fostering informed opinions. |
| It would increase productivity by reducing the need for litigants to travel to courts. | The Court recognized that live streaming would reduce the need for litigants to travel to courts, thereby increasing productivity. |
| Technology makes live streaming feasible and it has been adopted in other jurisdictions. | The Court noted that technology makes live streaming feasible and that it has been successfully adopted in other jurisdictions. |
| Introducing live streaming as a pilot project in Court No. 1 for Constitution Bench references. | The Court accepted this recommendation and directed that live streaming should be introduced as a pilot project in Court No. 1 for Constitution Bench references. |
| Designating a media room in the court premises for viewing live proceedings. | The Court agreed with the need for a designated media room for viewing live proceedings. |
| Laying down guidelines to safeguard and limit broadcasting. | The Court emphasized the need for guidelines to safeguard and limit broadcasting to ensure that it does not interfere with the administration of justice. |
| Restricting use of footage for news, education, and current affairs purposes only. | The Court agreed to restrict the use of footage for news, education, and current affairs purposes only. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of open trials for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and as a check against judicial vagaries.
- Scott v. Scott [1913] A.C. 417:* The Court quoted Bentham’s view on publicity as the soul of justice, reinforcing the need for transparency in judicial proceedings.
- AG v Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440:* This authority was used to highlight that open courts are a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness.
- Grollo v Palmer [1995] HCA 2:* The Court used this case to stress the importance of public hearings for the satisfaction of parties and the public that justice has been done.
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia 448 US 555 (1980):* The Court cited this to show that public trials have significant community therapeutic value and that people need to observe their institutions to accept them.
- Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545:* The Court used this case to reiterate the importance of a hearing and that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v Prof. Manubhai D. Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637:* This authority was used to emphasize the role of media in educating the public and the importance of disseminating information in a democracy.
- Mohd. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 653:* The Court referred to this case to define an open court as one to which the general public has a right to be admitted.
- Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam (2017) 4 SCC 150:* The Court considered this case to show how technology can be used to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain categories of cases.
- Santhini v Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1:* The Court cited this case to discuss the importance of using technology to enhance the delivery of justice.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow live streaming of court proceedings was influenced by several factors, primarily the need for greater transparency and public access to the judicial process. The Court emphasized that open justice is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and live streaming is a modern tool to achieve this goal. The Court also considered the educational value of live streaming, which would allow law students and the public to learn about the judicial process firsthand. However, the Court was also mindful of the need to protect the privacy of litigants and witnesses and to ensure that live streaming does not interfere with the administration of justice.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Transparency and Open Justice | 35% |
| Public Access to Information | 25% |
| Educational Value | 20% |
| Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality | 15% |
| Maintaining Administration of Justice | 5% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Fact:Law The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations, emphasizing the importance of open justice and public access, while also considering factual aspects such as the feasibility of live streaming and the need to protect privacy.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Should Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance be live-streamed?
Premise 1: Open justice is a fundamental principle.
Premise 2: Live streaming enhances public access and transparency.
Premise 3: Technology enables live streaming.
Premise 4: Safeguards are needed to protect privacy and administration of justice.
Conclusion: Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional importance should be live-streamed with necessary safeguards.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as restricting live streaming due to concerns about privacy and potential misuse. However, the Court rejected these interpretations, emphasizing that the benefits of live streaming, including greater transparency and public access, outweigh the potential risks, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place.
The Court’s decision was based on a careful consideration of the principle of open justice, the potential benefits of live streaming, and the need to protect the interests of all stakeholders. The Court emphasized that live streaming is an extension of the principle of open courts and that it is essential for a responsive and accountable judiciary.
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges agreeing on the need for live streaming, although Justice Chandrachud provided a separate concurring opinion that further elaborated on the importance of technology in enhancing access to justice. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing competing interests, including the right to know, the right to privacy, and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice.
The Court’s reasoning was supported by references to various authorities, including previous decisions of the Supreme Court and international jurisprudence. The Court’s decision also reflected a recognition of the need for the judiciary to adapt to modern technology and to embrace new methods for enhancing public access to justice.
“Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair 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.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- Live streaming of court proceedings will be introduced in a phased manner, starting with a pilot project in Court No. 1 for Constitution Bench references.
- The Supreme Court will frame rules to regulate the process of live streaming, including safeguards to protect privacy and ensure the proper administration of justice.
- Live streaming will be restricted to certain categories of cases, excluding matrimonial matters, sexual assault cases, and matters involving children and juveniles.
- The final authority to regulate live streaming in a particular case will lie with the presiding judge.
- The copyright over all recorded and broadcast material will vest with the Supreme Court.
- The recordings and broadcasts may not be used for commercial purposes.
- The High Courts are also commended to consider adopting live streaming in their respective courts and in the district judiciaries.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The project of live streaming of court proceedings should be implemented in a progressive, structured, and phased manner.
- Formal rules should be framed by the Court to incorporate the recommendations of the Attorney General for India.
- A technical committee should be appointed to develop technical guidelines for video recording and broadcasting court proceedings.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that live streaming of court proceedings is an essential extension of the principle of open justice and is necessary for enhancing transparency and public access to the judicial process. This decision marks a significant change in the previous position of law, where access to court proceedings was primarily limited to physical presence in the courtroom.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow live streaming of court proceedings is a landmark judgment that will significantly impact the way the judicial process is perceived and accessed by the public. By embracing technology and promoting transparency, the Court has taken a crucial step towards making justice more accessible and accountable to all citizens.