<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant urgent hearing on a plea by RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya for a direction to live stream the proceedings in the Ayodhya dispute matter to be heard on day-to-day basis from August 6 by a Constitution bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices S A Bobde and B R Gavai, however, agreed to consider the plea on administrative side as senior advocate Vikas Singh contended if not live streaming, then the proceedings can at least be recorded.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said that it was something institutional. “We don't know if we have the equipment for live streaming or recording the proceedings,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Singh, appearing for Govindacharya, mentioned the matter and sought hearing on Monday itself on the issue.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In his writ petition, Govindacharya said that the issue of Ram temple has created a large-scale interest among crores of people who are desperate for early justice.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“India is a digital super power and has the means to arrange for live streaming of the Ayodhya matter. The Right to Know has been held to be a fundamental right, and thus necessary directions must be passed for live streaming of proceedings of the Supreme Court to immediately start with Ayodhya matter,” his plea stated.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He relied upon the 2018 judgement of the apex court, which stated “introduction of live streaming will effectuate the public's right to know about court proceedings and will help bring the work of the judiciary to the lives of citizens.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a writ petition, the 76-year-old said, among others, the common public which is devotee of Lord Ram is interested in knowing as to how an individual can represent Lord Ram before the Supreme Court.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant urgent hearing on a plea by RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya for a direction to live stream the proceedings in the Ayodhya dispute matter to be heard on day-to-day basis from August 6 by a Constitution bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices S A Bobde and B R Gavai, however, agreed to consider the plea on administrative side as senior advocate Vikas Singh contended if not live streaming, then the proceedings can at least be recorded.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court said that it was something institutional. “We don't know if we have the equipment for live streaming or recording the proceedings,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Singh, appearing for Govindacharya, mentioned the matter and sought hearing on Monday itself on the issue.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In his writ petition, Govindacharya said that the issue of Ram temple has created a large-scale interest among crores of people who are desperate for early justice.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“India is a digital super power and has the means to arrange for live streaming of the Ayodhya matter. The Right to Know has been held to be a fundamental right, and thus necessary directions must be passed for live streaming of proceedings of the Supreme Court to immediately start with Ayodhya matter,” his plea stated.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He relied upon the 2018 judgement of the apex court, which stated “introduction of live streaming will effectuate the public's right to know about court proceedings and will help bring the work of the judiciary to the lives of citizens.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a writ petition, the 76-year-old said, among others, the common public which is devotee of Lord Ram is interested in knowing as to how an individual can represent Lord Ram before the Supreme Court.</p>
