Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the petitions seeking live streaming of court proceedings, recognising virtual access as an extension of open justice and the public’s right to information. It approved progressive implementation, beginning with a limited pilot involving constitutional and national-importance cases, subject to formal rules and judicial control. Fair trial, privacy, confidentiality and sensitive proceedings required safeguards. The separate opinion proposed model guidelines while expressly preserving the Court’s rule-making authority. The judgment did not order immediate unrestricted broadcasting of every court case.
Issues
- Whether live streaming would advance open justice, access to justice and public access to information.
- What implementation process and safeguards were required.
- How party objections, sensitive proceedings and judicial discretion should be accommodated.
- What status attached to the implementation suggestions and model guidelines.
Provisions considered
- Article 145(4), Constitution of IndiaThe express requirement that judgments and advisory opinions be delivered in open court supported the broader discussion of open justice. Modalities of live streaming were to be addressed through the Court’s rule-making process. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 6, 13–17, Chandrachud J., 8, 25–26)
- Section 153B, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The open-court principle and the presiding judge’s authority to restrict public access demonstrated the balance between publicity and proper administration of justice. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 6–7, 13, Chandrachud J., 8–9)
- Section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The provision illustrated open criminal proceedings and protective exceptions, including in-camera proceedings and publication restrictions. These considerations informed the safeguards for live streaming. (¶ Khanwilkar J., 6–7, 13)
Held
- Live streaming could give meaningful virtual access to people prevented by distance, cost or courtroom capacity from attending. It advanced access to justice, the right to receive information, transparency and public confidence, without making physical attendance the sole means of open justice. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 2–3, 8–9, 12–13, 18, Chandrachud J., 13–18, 21–23)
- Khanwilkar J.’s opinion approved progressive, structured and phased implementation, with formal rules before the first phase. A limited pilot would begin with specified cases or final hearings of constitutional and national importance before Constitution Benches, requiring advance written permission from the concerned court. (¶ Khanwilkar J., 14(i), 17–19)
- Party consent was to be sought, but disagreement did not create an automatic veto: the court could decide after considering the objections. The concerned court retained power to revoke permission when required by the administration of justice. (¶ Khanwilkar J., 13–14(ii)–(iv))
- Fair trial, dignity, privacy, confidentiality, national security and sensitive subject matter required exceptions and judicial control. The broadly accepted Attorney General framework excluded categories such as matrimonial matters and sexual-assault proceedings and provided protection for juveniles and vulnerable witnesses. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 10–11, 13–14, Chandrachud J., 25(b)–(d), 26 and model guidelines A)
- The proposed framework required a broadcast delay so sensitive material could be withheld, court-controlled recording, protection of privileged interactions and private notes, and court ownership and regulation of reuse. The opinions proposed different delay periods; the judgment left detailed modalities to formal rules. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 14(v), 16–17, Chandrachud J., 25(c), 25(e)–(h), 26 and model guidelines B–F)
- An initial intranet relay to designated areas within the Supreme Court premises could be explored pending a full internet mechanism. Provision for persons with disabilities formed part of the access arrangements. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 15, Chandrachud J., model guidelines E)
- Chandrachud J.’s separate opinion recommended considering phased adoption in the High Courts and district judiciary, consistent with resources and technical support. His model guidelines were expressly suggestive and did not displace the Court’s authority to determine phases, categories, technology, agencies and use of the feed through rules. (¶ Chandrachud J., 21–26)
- The writ petitions and intervention applications were allowed with these observations, and expeditious formulation of rules and execution of the first phase were contemplated. The decision approved the project subject to safeguards, rather than granting unrestricted private recording rights. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 16–19, Chandrachud J., 25–26 and model guidelines C, F)
Result
Writ petitions and intervention applications allowed with observations approving phased live streaming, subject to formal rules, safeguards and court control. Expeditious rule-making and first-phase implementation contemplated.