The Evolution of Courtroom Access Through Live-Streaming
The integration of live-streaming into the Indian judicial system has marked a significant shift in how courts operate, affecting judges, lawyers, litigants, and the general public alike. This transformation gained momentum following the Supreme Court’s decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which initiated live-streaming as a pilot project for constitutional cases of significant public interest. The necessity of virtual access became even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which essentially forced the adoption of virtual courtrooms to prevent the judicial system from stalling. As virtual courts become a permanent fixture, the challenge lies in maximizing their benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls.
Open Justice and Its Societal Importance
Live-streaming and virtual access are extensions of the open justice principle, which holds that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. This transparency acts as a safeguard against misconduct by legal professionals and enhances public accountability. By allowing the public to view courtroom proceedings, the system encourages higher standards of efficiency and competence. Open justice is crucial for fostering public understanding and confidence in the judicial process, essential components of the Rule of Law. It also supports the right to a fair trial under Article 21 and the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
The Benefits of Virtual Courtrooms
During the pandemic, virtual hearings were crucial for both litigants and lawyers, supporting their right to practice under Article 19(1)(e). For many lawyers, especially those less technologically adept, the transition was challenging, impacting their livelihoods. However, in overcrowded Indian courtrooms, virtual access has proven advantageous, saving litigants and lawyers the need to travel to distant courts and endure long waiting times. This digital shift has made the legal system more accessible and comprehensible to the public. Furthermore, live-streaming enhances legal education by allowing students and young practitioners to observe real-time advocacy and judicial processes. It also aids journalists, researchers, and academics by reducing the need for physical court visits.
Challenges and Drawbacks of Live-Streaming
Despite its advantages, live-streaming presents challenges, particularly regarding the balance between transparency and the need for contextual understanding. Fragmented clips often lack the complete context, potentially trivializing proceedings and reducing their gravity. Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court once noted that televised court snippets could mislead rather than educate the public. The digital environment’s focus on sensationalism over education is a significant concern. Additionally, the exposure of courtroom proceedings has led to performative advocacy, where lawyers may feel pressured to make their presence known, sometimes to the detriment of justice delivery.
The Impact on Judicial Independence and Professional Conduct
Live-streaming has also brought challenges related to professional conduct and judicial independence. The Bar Council of India prohibits self-promotion, yet live-streaming has enabled indirect advertising through curated video clips. Moreover, real-time public scrutiny can pressure judges, potentially compromising their independence. The Bombay High Court, in Sunil Shantisarup Gupta v. Department of Legal Affairs, emphasized the importance of judicial independence from external influences, warning against the pressures of continuous media coverage.
Rethinking the Framework of Open Justice
Though the advantages of virtual access are undeniable, the system requires adjustments to ensure that open justice remains true to its foundational principles of accuracy and context. The essence of open justice should be to promote informed public engagement, not to turn courtroom proceedings into consumable content. As technology evolves, it is imperative to maintain the core values of the judicial process.
Madhavi Goradia Divan is a Senior Advocate and author of ‘Facets of Media Law’. Contributions were made by Advocate Aandrita Deb.
