The famous legal adage by Lord Hewart, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” emphasizes the necessity for transparency in the judicial process. However, this maxim prompts a deeper inquiry: what aspects of justice are meant to be visible? Should every facet, including contemptuous behavior, be exposed to public scrutiny? These questions gain prominence in the era of live-streaming courtroom proceedings.
Judicial authority is built on public confidence, derived from the fair and orderly conduct of legal proceedings. Disruptions in the court can extend beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing public perception. Incidents where litigants display unruly behavior, such as using offensive language or causing commotion, threaten this perception. A notable example occurred recently in the Supreme Court, where a litigant disrupted proceedings with unparliamentary conduct, culminating in his removal and the dismissal of his petition. The Court chose not to exercise its contempt powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, highlighting a growing concern.
The aftermath of such disruptions often sees decontextualized clips circulating on social media, generating significant engagement. This phenomenon was foreseen by the Supreme Court in the case of S Khushboo v. Kanniammal, where the Court had urged media outlets to responsibly report courtroom events without sensationalism.
To combat the misuse of courtroom footage, the Supreme Court has introduced measures to regulate the dissemination of live-streamed content. In Harshita Grover v. Union of India, an interim order was passed restricting the unauthorized use of live-streamed proceedings on digital platforms without prior approval. This regulation specifically targets the harm caused by the extraction and monetization of clips lacking context.
Addressing the spread of viral clips requires more than punitive measures against the initial disruptor. While contempt actions can penalize the individual responsible for the disruption, they are ineffective against the widespread circulation of content. The challenge lies in regulating a continuous process of distribution and reposting, often driven by algorithms and countless anonymous users.
A comprehensive approach is essential to manage the viral spread of court proceedings. This includes requiring social media platforms to comply with takedown requests and considering temporary restrictions on the live feed during disruptions. Additionally, holding certain proceedings in camera may be necessary to maintain judicial decorum.
Ultimately, ensuring justice is perceived as fair involves more than merely broadcasting proceedings. It demands a balance between transparency and the protection of the judicial process from becoming a spectacle. Responsible media practices, combined with procedural safeguards on live-streaming, can help uphold the integrity of the courts while adhering to the spirit of Lord Hewart’s maxim.
Nakul Dewan, a Senior Advocate and King’s Counsel, provides insight into these challenges and the evolving nature of courtroom visibility in the digital age.
