<p>The live-streaming of Karnataka High Court proceedings on an experimental basis is a welcome step and should in due course become a permanent feature so that the open court concept becomes the norm, in the state and across the country. A three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra had first recommended broadcasting Supreme Court hearings live in the Swapnil Tripathi case and a committee headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud had framed guidelines for it two years later. While courts have demonstrated their ability to quickly adapt to technology by going online during the pandemic, live-streaming is still a far cry, with the apex court itself failing to latch on to the idea. In February 2020, the Calcutta High Court had allowed live-streaming the case of a Parsi woman challenging the restrictions on entry into the Temple of Fire on the children of those who had married outside the community. Over 68,000 had watched the proceedings. In October last, the Gujarat High Court began broadcasting proceedings on the internet on an experimental basis. Now that the Karnataka High Court has jumped onto the bandwagon, we must hope that other High Courts and the Supreme Court, too, follow suit.</p>.<p>It is said that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. Livestreaming will help do so, placing an increased burden of accountability on judges and lawyers. It will enable litigants and others to watch the proceedings without being physically present in court. It will also enhance transparency, reduce the public’s need to depend on second-hand sources to understand what transpired in court and inspire confidence in the functioning of the judiciary. Students of law will also greatly benefit from being able to watch court hearings.</p>.<p>India is among the few democracies that does not maintain an audio or video recording of court proceedings. While the High Courts of Canada, Brazil, United Kingdom and Germany permit livestreaming, in Australia, the hearings are recorded and posted for public viewing. While videography is not permitted in the US, all arguments are recorded, transcribed and put out in the public domain. Even authoritarian China has been for some time now live-streaming proceedings at all levels of its court system. It is unfortunate that India, the world’s biggest democracy, continues to lag behind. The Supreme Court and the High Courts should ensure that live-streaming of their proceedings does not end with mere experiments but becomes a permanent feature across the country soon.</p>
<p>The live-streaming of Karnataka High Court proceedings on an experimental basis is a welcome step and should in due course become a permanent feature so that the open court concept becomes the norm, in the state and across the country. A three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra had first recommended broadcasting Supreme Court hearings live in the Swapnil Tripathi case and a committee headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud had framed guidelines for it two years later. While courts have demonstrated their ability to quickly adapt to technology by going online during the pandemic, live-streaming is still a far cry, with the apex court itself failing to latch on to the idea. In February 2020, the Calcutta High Court had allowed live-streaming the case of a Parsi woman challenging the restrictions on entry into the Temple of Fire on the children of those who had married outside the community. Over 68,000 had watched the proceedings. In October last, the Gujarat High Court began broadcasting proceedings on the internet on an experimental basis. Now that the Karnataka High Court has jumped onto the bandwagon, we must hope that other High Courts and the Supreme Court, too, follow suit.</p>.<p>It is said that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. Livestreaming will help do so, placing an increased burden of accountability on judges and lawyers. It will enable litigants and others to watch the proceedings without being physically present in court. It will also enhance transparency, reduce the public’s need to depend on second-hand sources to understand what transpired in court and inspire confidence in the functioning of the judiciary. Students of law will also greatly benefit from being able to watch court hearings.</p>.<p>India is among the few democracies that does not maintain an audio or video recording of court proceedings. While the High Courts of Canada, Brazil, United Kingdom and Germany permit livestreaming, in Australia, the hearings are recorded and posted for public viewing. While videography is not permitted in the US, all arguments are recorded, transcribed and put out in the public domain. Even authoritarian China has been for some time now live-streaming proceedings at all levels of its court system. It is unfortunate that India, the world’s biggest democracy, continues to lag behind. The Supreme Court and the High Courts should ensure that live-streaming of their proceedings does not end with mere experiments but becomes a permanent feature across the country soon.</p>
