Why doesn’t the Supreme Court Livestream Hearings?
The pandemic forced hearings to move online. Why don’t courts livestream these proceedings?
2020 has been wild. We decided to take a week off to recover and recalibrate. This is why you haven’t heard from us in a while.
When it comes to the law, one of the biggest fallouts of this pandemic-stricken year was that courts were compelled to adopt modern technology. These institutions, which have long resisted technological disruption, finally had to relent. Justice dispensation needed to continue despite the country being in lockdown. Hence, courts went online.
The next big frontier is livestreaming. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone could watch what was happening in the Supreme Court? This would improve the public’s understanding of the judicial system and bring much-needed transparency to the law.
Today’s story explains what’s keeping us from bingeing on court proceedings.
“Sunlight in the Best Disinfectant”
The Supreme Court has actually considered this idea in detail. In 2018, a public interest litigation was filed on this very issue. In the case, the petitioners argued that there were several benefits to allowing cases to be livestreamed. It would enable the entire country to view the process of justice delivery, which is especially crucial in matters of Constitutional and national importance.
Livestreaming of the Sabarimala case? I’d dig that.
In this 2018 judgement, the court held that making proceedings accessible was desirable. Article 129 of the Constitution recognizes the Supreme Court as a “court of record” and in-court hearings are already open to members of the public.
However, this move would require comprehensive guidelines and suitable amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Supreme Court ended by stating – “[We] hope that the relevant rules will be formulated expeditiously and the first phase project executed in right earnest by all concerned.”
International Precedents
There are various international examples for formulating guidelines on livestreaming.
In 2013, the High Court of Australia, made audio-visual recordings of its hearings available to the public. These recordings are published a few days after hearings and vetted for sensitive information. The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court allows video and audio streams of proceedings to be broadcast live, including on the TV and on the radio. Other countries like the United Kingdom also permit broadcasting of courtroom proceedings.
Closer home, the Gujarat High Court became the first court in India to livestream its hearings on YouTube on a trial basis. The press release stated that this move would broaden the implementation of the open court concept. Whether this practice will continue will be determined basis the outcome of the experiment.
Decision Pending
Recently, the e-committee of the Supreme Court constituted a four-member subcommittee to decide how livestreaming can be implemented in all courts. The subcommittee will consider the financial, technical, security, and privacy concerns that may arise from such streaming.
At the same time, the Chief Justice of India stated that while he agreed with the move in principle, he was concerned about livestreaming being misused. Even other judges noted that this move could result in some negative use. However, there was agreement between the judges and various senior advocates that these risks could be minimized by measures such as having a slight delay in the livestream to ensure that nothing sensitive or improper is broadcast.
Will 2021 be the year? We hope so.
Stay WorldWise!
The third cohort of our Law Firm Boot Camp is starting on January 11. In the past few months, we’ve worked with over 50 students and received incredible feedback. If you’re a law student who wants to work at top law firms, you don’t want to miss out on this.