The Supreme Court of India has recently pushed for greater transparency in the judicial system by setting the stage for live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of constitutional importance. The court has directed the centre to frame rules and regulations for this and said that the project will be carried out in phases. Sharing ideas, thoughts and points of arguments on live-streaming as part of suo moto proceedings for Court’s functioning during Covid-19 pandemic have been debated a lot.

A three-judges bench agreed that it would serve as an instrument for greater accountability and it would form part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. “It will encourage the principle of open court, effectuate the public’s right to know and reduce dependence on second-hand views,” said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Bench had asked attorney general K.K. Venugopal to frame “comprehensive and holistic guidelines” and said that the exercise could start on an experimental basis in one court. The attorney general has suggested that the centre can set up a television channel for live-streaming court proceedings along the lines of Rajya Sabha TV.

In the verdict pronounced on September 26, 2018, in Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India and related cases, the Apex court had laid down elaborate guidelines and modalities for live-streaming and held that the Supreme Court rules, 2013 needs to be suitably amended to provide for the regulatory framework for holistic live-streaming.

The Supreme Court in September 2018 in a judgment had paved the way for live streaming of court proceedings. Two years down the line, in a discussion, Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde has stated that in practice, live streaming can be misused as he is already facing several complaints over the virtual hearings taking place over the videoconferencing app Vidyo. It is important to note that the Vidyo app has been developed under Enghouse systems, which is based in New Jersey, USA.

CJI Bobde, heading a 3-judge bench said, “In principle, I agree that there should be live streaming but in practice, you must hear me. As CJI, I have to deal with so many complaints over the virtual court proceedings.”

The observation followed a suggestion by Attorney General KK Venugopal who insisted that since Gujarat High Court had taken the lead in live streaming the proceedings, the Supreme Court can follow suit. In September 2018, the Supreme Court had considered this issue in a PIL filed by Swapnil Tripathi and gave its go-ahead considering all constitutional aspects involved in this exercise.

Venugopal reminded CJI, “Now there is a judgment requiring the Court to have live-streaming. I was satisfied watching the live streaming of proceedings in the Gujarat High Court.” The bench, also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and LN Rao said, “There can be some negative use or abuse of live streaming.”  Justice Chandrachud, who heads the e-committee of the Supreme Court responsible for enhancing virtual court proceedings, told Venugopal that a delay of 20 seconds occurs between the live streaming and actual proceedings in the Gujarat High Court. This ensures a check that nothing untoward is going live.

On the aspect of providing optical fibre network, senior advocate Harish Salve, who was appearing in another case, entered the matter through videoconferencing and offered help on behalf of his client, Reliance Jio. Though Jio was not party to that particular proceeding, Salve said, “My client Jio has the best optical fibre network and they offer it at an inexpensive rate.”

When Puducherry based activist-journalist Mr. Saurav Das filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking to known the reasons for the non-implementation of the directions in the Swapnil Tripathi judgement, he received the reply from the Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court that the judicial orders were passed and the matter is under consideration of the Registry.

Justice DY Chandrachud, the chairman of e-committee of the SCI stated that the e-committee has set up a panel that will focus on setting benchmarks and standards for digitizing courts and providing a virtual interface to litigants through videoconferencing and live streaming. He further added that this panel will recommend rules, requirements of digital infrastructure, and budgetary allocation for implementing the projects.

As a first step, the panel, with the help of experts, has framed Model Rules for Videoconferencing for the benefit of high courts that are yet to frame Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to conduct courts through videoconferencing. At present, most high courts in the country function through videoconferencing on a host of videoconferencing apps available in the public domain. The country’s Apex court itself uses Vidyo while high courts prefer Zoom, Google Meet, Cisco Webex, or Jitsi, besides Vidyo.

Justice Chandrachud, the chairman of the Supreme Court e-committee said that a broad-based committee has already framed model rules for videoconferencing and that the committee is also looking into live streaming and digitization and towards having a National Best Practices Standards in this regard for the entire judiciary.

The author is a student member of Amity Centre of Happiness.