The idea of live-streaming proceedings of higher courts comes with a host of riders, too
Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court has again underlined the need for video streaming of court proceedings. People will get the opportunity to see justice in action. The judges and lawyers will be under scrutiny. The exercise will help both sides to better understand each other’s concerns. Five High Courts already record court proceedings in India, making them available on YouTube or court websites for viewing. Last June, the e-Committee of the Supreme Court announced draft rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings. Justice Chandrachud’s articulation should help launch a debate on the issue. In India, the TV screen is largely a source of mass entertainment, whether in the form of skits, serials, cinema or even news. Court proceedings cannot be watched with the same attitude. They show us how the process of justice is negotiated without bias or prejudice, day in and day out, in millions of cases in 25 High Courts and the Supreme Court. Some argue that opening up court proceedings is a calculated risk. The clinching argument, however, is that watching justice being done can help us understand how an independent judiciary interprets laws and protects the Constitution. Having said that, we can presume Justice Chandrachud must have given serious thought to the complications live court proceedings can lead to in the Indian context. The biggest is the possibility of the hearing in a sensitive case polarising the viewership.
One can imagine the implications of live streaming in cases like Nirbhaya, Sabarimala or Ayodhya. A majority of such cases are sensitive. Or, they could be industrial, property or marital disputes where the parties can, and will, demand privacy. Cases about espionage and national security will naturally be exempt. So, the percentage of cases related to national, societal, religious or other contemporary issues open for video streaming will be small. Given our linguistic, regional and sub-national diversity, there will be myriad restrictions and exceptions. These will render the whole exercise insipid at least in the initial years. Evidentiary hearings are equally complex. They involve eyewitness testimony and, therefore, protecting the identity of the witness becomes paramount. On the other hand, the biggest positive of video streaming will be the reluctance to pursue the “tareekh pe tareekh” approach under the constant public glare. Tactics to prolong trials or grandstanding before the cameras will not be remunerative for their practitioners. Watching the court proceedings will make people aware of judicial processes and less fearful of the judges and lawyers. The availability of recordings will do away with the risk of misinterpretation of the oral observations of judges and testimonies of witnesses. At the same time, the fact that their words and actions are being watched will influence attires and attitudes of the officers of the law. Cameras capture the judges, too.