In recent years, live-streaming court proceedings has emerged as a landmark measure to increase transparency in the Indian judicial system. This initiative has allowed people to witness the judiciary working firsthand, creating greater understanding and trust in legal processes. However, as with many revolutionary changes, this initiative comes with its own set of challenges and controversies. One of the most pressing issues is the misuse of such content, which has prompted various high courts nationwide to take a firm stand on the matter.

The Current Legal Framework

In 2018, the landmark judgment Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018 INSC 886) paved the way for the live streaming of court proceedings in the Indian judicial system. This judgment opened the floodgates of support for live streaming. It upheld the principles of transparency and openness in the judiciary and cleared the common public’s obscure perception of the law.

Subsequently, after the judgement, the Supreme Court provided elaborate guidelines on the modalities of live streaming, focusing on balancing transparency with the privacy of sensitive information. The Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings aim to enhance transparency and access to justice by establishing the infrastructure and framework for live streaming and recording. These rules apply to the High Courts and subordinate courts. They outline definitions and provide guidance on hardware placement and personnel roles. They also describe live streaming and recording procedures while specifying exclusions for certain sensitive cases.

The rules detail the storage, access, and relay of recordings, along with imposing restrictions on their use and dissemination. They also consist of mechanisms for objections and dedicated viewing rooms. The jurisdictional High Court can relax rules and address unforeseen issues. Apart from the guidelines released by the Supreme Court, various High Courts have taken the initiative of releasing rules to regulate the live streaming of court proceedings.

Stance of High Courts on Misuse of Live Streaming

Recently, there has been a growing concern about the misuse of live-streamed court proceedings. Numerous edited and morphed videos are circulating on social media platforms. Given its impact on the public, such content can alter their perception of the judiciary and its process. Moreover, video clips taken out of context or associated with memes can directly impact the reputation of judges and lawyers. This has led various High Courts to take note of the issue and take decisive actions to curb such practices.

1. High Court of Madhya Pradesh

In the case of Dr Vijay Bajaj v. Union of India & Ors (WP 30572/2024), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently highlighted the rampant misuse of live-streamed content. The court noted that social media users circulate live-streamed content as memes, reels, and short clips online. The court issued a directive restraining social media platforms, media agencies, and individuals from engaging in such activities.

2. High Court of Gujarat

The High Court of Gujarat was the first to implement live streaming in India in 2020. It has also faced challenges related to the misuse of live-streamed footage. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHAA) complaints have highlighted instances of live-streaming content used for commercial purposes with questionable intentions. This has prompted the court to take measures to prevent the unauthorised editing and distribution of court proceedings.

3. High Court of Chhattisgarh

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has expressed concern over the growing trend of judge bashing. The public access to court proceedings has fueled the increasing trend of judge-bashing. In its decision on April 02, 2024, the court called for stringent regulations to prevent the misuse of live-streamed content and protect the judiciary’s reputation. The court also issued directions for the Registrar (Judicial) to register contempt proceedings after identifying individuals by seeking help from the State Cyber Cell.

4. High Court of Orissa

Justice (Dr) S. Muralidhar, the then Chief Justice, raised concerns about the unauthorised use of court video clips on YouTube. In one of his addresses, he advocated for a “Judicial Data Security Policy” to protect judicial data and regulate its use. He argued in favour of taking steps to prevent misuse and misrepresentation of live-streamed proceedings.

The Good, the Bad, and the Sensationalisation

Live streaming of court proceedings brings several benefits by increasing:

• Transparency: The judicial process becomes more transparent, allowing the public to witness how courts work.
• Public Understanding: It fosters a better understanding of legal proceedings among the general populace, promoting legal literacy.
• Accountability: When courtrooms are open to public scrutiny, it enhances accountability within the judiciary.
• Educational Value: Law students, researchers, and legal professionals can benefit from observing live court proceedings and gaining valuable insights into the judicial process.

However, there are concerns regarding the potential misuse of public access, namely:

• Content Misuse: Edited and morphed clips can misrepresent court proceedings, leading to misinformation and sensationalism.
• Privacy Concerns: The live streaming of sensitive cases can compromise the privacy of individuals involved, including victims, witnesses, and defendants.
• Judge-Bashing: Increased public access to court proceedings can lead to unwarranted criticism and judge bashing, undermining the courts’ authority.
• Commercial Exploitation: The unauthorised use of live-streamed content for commercial purposes can distort the judicial process and erode public trust.

The rise of sensational court reporting has further complicated the debate. Several news outlets and social media handles use snippets of court proceedings, often with misleading thumbnails and titles to attract views and generate revenue. This practice not only mispresents the proceedings but also risks spreading misinformation. This is directly contrary to the objectives of transparency and public education that the live streaming aimed to achieve.

Moreover, the public’s trust in the judiciary is foundational to believing in the Constitution and the rule of law. When individuals morph or manipulate live-streamed content, it ruins the sanctity of the judiciary and tarnishes its reputation. Such practices undermine public confidence in the judicial system as it is supposed to embody the highest standards of integrity and fairness. The judiciary represents the law and its dignity; thus, any distortion of its proceedings can lead to a broader erosion of trust in the country’s legal framework.

Furthermore, such instances can threaten the parties’ privacy in live-streamed proceedings. Thus, ensuring accurate and respectful use of the live-streamed content is essential to maintaining the public’s faith in the justice system.

What Can We Do?

Stopping the live streaming of court proceedings is not an option. However, we can consider the following steps:

• The courts must rigorously enforce existing guidelines to prevent the misuse of live-streamed content.
• The IT teams of courts can introduce a short delay in the live broadcast to allow for the removal of sensitive or potentially misleading segments before they reach the public.
• The Supreme Court can implement a comprehensive policy to protect judicial proceedings and regulate its use to safeguard the integrity of live-streamed court proceedings.
• The stakeholders can educate the public on the responsible use of live-streamed content to mitigate the risks of misrepresentation and misuse.

Conclusion

The live streaming of court proceedings represents a significant step towards transparency and public engagement. However, the potential for misuse of live-streamed content necessitates a careful and balanced approach. Strictly adhering to legal provisions, raising public awareness, and more vigorous implementation can ensure live streaming serves its intended purpose. It is essential for all stakeholders, including social media platforms, media agencies, and the public, to understand and maintain the judiciary’s credibility.

I firmly believe that the ultimate success of live-streaming court proceedings hinges on our collective commitment to responsible usage. As we move forward, let us embrace the opportunities presented by live streaming while remaining vigilant against its potential downsides. We should ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in the truest sense.