Crux:
It was held that any proceedings of cases that were of constitutional and national importance held before the Supreme Court of India should be broadcasted to the public.
Bench:
A Khanwilkar
Appellant:
Swapnil Tripathi
Respondent:
Supreme Court of India
Issue
Whether there should be live broadcasting of proceedings of constitutional and national importance before this Court with the aid of information and communications technology (ICT)?
Facts
- A petition was filed in 2017, before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- It was stated in the petition that, “Supreme Court case proceedings of constitutional importance having an impact on the public at large or a large number of people should be live streamed in a manner that is easily accessible for public viewing”.
- The petition also stressed upon the court to impose guidelines for future cases which were going to be streamed.
Appellant’s contentions
- This becomes a corresponding obligation on the State to spread awareness about the law and its development. This is because no person can feign ignorance of the law.
- The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court case namely Naresh Shridhar Mirjkar v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was held that “Article 19 of the Constitution included the right of journalists to publish reports of court proceedings.”
Respondent’s contentions
- The learned Attorney General, KK Venugopal was the attorney for the respondent. He set certain guidelines for streaming of cases which were upheld by the Bench while taking the decision.
Relevant paragraphs ( paragraphs 3, 9, 22, 23 and 25 of the original judgement )
- Because no one can claim ignorance of the law, the State has a responsibility to educate the public about the law and its developments, including any changes in the law that may occur during the adjudication of cases before this Court.
- The right to know and receive information is a feature of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and as a result, the public has the right to witness Court proceedings regarding issues that affect the general public or a segment of the general public, as the case may be. The notion of human dignity underpins this right to receive knowledge and be informed.
- Because of technological advancements, live broadcasting of court proceedings is now possible and has been implemented in numerous jurisdictions throughout the world. In one sense, using technology to transmit live court hearings allows the courtroom to “virtually” expand beyond the physical four walls of the courtroom.
- The need for live-streaming of proceedings applies equally to matters in the district judiciary and the High Courts, if not more so in some situations. In our country, the pattern of litigation resembles a pyramid. Live-streaming of proceedings is critical for disseminating information about judicial processes and ensuring that litigants have full access to justice.
Final Decision
The Court concluded that the live streaming should be accepted “so as to uphold the constitutional rights of the public and the litigants”.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
