New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted time to the Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to frame “holistic” guidelines for live streaming of court proceedings.
A three-judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud hearing petitions seeking a direction for live telecast of court proceedings asked the AG to submit the guidelines in two weeks so that the court can approve and allow live streaming. On July 9, the CJI had agreed in principle for this proposal and asked suggestions from the AG and petitioners Indira Jaising and others to submit suggestions.
The Attorney General had informed the Court that video-recording and live streaming of judicial proceedings can be undertaken on a trial basis in constitutional matters, which can be extended to other matters later on.
He said that a pilot project for live streaming and video recording could be undertakeninitially in constitutional matters. This can be analysed after three months to ascertain how it functions technologically, he said and added that the experiment could be extended to other matters and other courts.
Ms. Jaising agreed with the AG, but also submitted that adequate safeguards should be made to ensure that clippings of the recordings are not made and circulated, and that the same are not used for commercial purposes.
The Court asked the Attorney General to give his suggestions in writing, and listed the matter for further hearing on August 17.
On July 9 the CJI had orally observed that “it was the need of the hour” and had indicated that the apex court was open to the suggestion for live telecast of proceedings as it would ensure transparency and make 'access to justice’ by a litigant a reality.
The CJI had said, “This would ensure transparency and further serve public interest. Live streaming and recording of court proceedings will help the public know instantly about the important developments in the court.
Ms. Jaising had said courts around the world allowed their proceedings to be recorded, though they differed in their ways. She had said that some judges in constitutional court in India have historically been reluctant about the idea of recording court proceedings because it would “capture every sentence” in the banter between judges and lawyers which are merely a way to elicit responses and not a sign of how the judge would finally decide the case.
