Supreme court streaming live

Supreme court streaming live

The decision to live-stream proceedings must be the first step towards greater transparency that will enhance public trust in the judiciary’s functioning. The archive will be an excellent opportunity to identify and address systemic patterns that are affecting judicial functioning.

The Supreme Court’s decision to live-stream proceedings — beginning Tuesday — was taken in a full court led by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit last week. It is immensely welcome. The move, which expands on the idea of an open court that is accessible and transparent, marks the onset of a significant transformation in the judiciary’s functioning. Live-streaming directly brings citizens into conversations that have so far largely remained restricted to judges, lawyers and litigants, on vital issues affecting the polity and society. These include cases challenging the constitutionality of job quotas for economically weaker sections, questions related to the political crisis in Maharashtra after the breakaway of a section of Shiv Sena legislators, and about the validity of the All India Bar Examination.

In 2018 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court allowed live-streaming in cases of constitutional and national importance. Attorney General KK Venugopal, who has for long advocated the idea of regional benches of the Supreme Court to improve access to justice, also batted for live-streaming. Quoting the English legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the Supreme Court said that 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,” the Court had said. It still took four years, three chief justices and the pandemic to ensure the adequate infrastructure for live-streaming. On the Supreme Court’s cue, at least seven high courts started telecasting proceedings live. In February, the case challenging the state government’s ban on students wearing the hijab before the Karnataka High Court became the first constitutional case to be telecast live. Before that, the cases relating to the management of the Covid crisis before the Gujarat High Court were also keenly watched. Across the world, live-streaming of judicial processes is an established practice — from the International Court of Justice to the Supreme Courts in other common law countries such as Kenya, Canada, Brazil.

Live-streaming is also an accountability tool for a check on populist statements by lawyers and for ensuring that judges begin proceedings on time and give equal opportunity to all sides. It is also an invaluable resource for those who study and teach law. The archive will be an excellent opportunity to identify and address systemic patterns that are affecting judicial functioning. For example, multiple studies on the US Supreme Court audio archives found a pattern in the disruptions — female judges were more frequently interrupted than their male counterparts. The decision to live-stream proceedings must be the first step towards greater transparency that will enhance public trust in the judiciary’s functioning.